Would you choose to ditch a fixed gear in water?

Jim_R

Jim_R

Pattern Altitude
PoA Supporter
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
Messages
2,051
Display Name
Display name:
Jim
During my PPL checkride, the DPE made a point to emphasize that if I ever had to make a forced landing and a large-enough body of water was nearby, to consider ditching in the water instead of aiming for a road or a field. His logic was that you could land straight into the wind, and you don't often find power lines or other obstructions across a pond or lake, and (depending on the lake), boats would be less common than cars on a road.

I didn't argue with him at the time, but I can see two big downsides to a water ditching. Regardless of aircraft, even if there are no injuries to the occupants, you've still got to get out of the plane and then out of the water to dry ground to be safe. In my sedentary middle-age condition, I'd have a tough time swimming a lap in a neighborhood pool; I'm not confident I (or other passengers) could make the swim successfully. If anyone's injured in the event, that becomes even harder.

And for a fixed gear specifically, the chances of a nose-over seem pretty huge. A belly landing in a retract might be fairly gentle if conditions are right, but I expect a fixed gear ditch is going to be traumatic almost every time.

So I've always discounted the idea of ditching, if I have an option for dry land instead.

Thoughts?
 
Your instructor was an idiot. If you have an option never go for water go for land. What a bone head instructor. Amazes me some try to instruct at all. Problem they believe they know what they are talking about.


Tony
 
A water ditching might not be my first choice, but in some situations, I might choose it over available alternatives. Even at 65, unless I am injured, I don't think I would have a problem with egress or swimming to shore. Even if I had to assist someone.

Landing in traffic, or a crowded beach, or even in a field that may possibly have unseen fences logs or other obstructions is more scary to me than an "in the wind" water landing in a retract.

I might feel different in a fixed gear plane.
 
Lets see... Land with high probability of 0 damage to airplane or people... or... Land with 100% probability of total loss of the aircraft and high risk of injury or drowning... hmmm ... that's a hard one...
 
Over a place like Michigan where there are lots of trees, I would opt for a lake over tall trees. Water temperature plays a factor too of course.
 
DesertNomad said:
Over a place like Michigan where there are lots of trees, I would opt for a lake over tall trees. Water temperature plays a factor too of course.
Click to expand...
Very much so - thinking of LS, or LM except in late summer near the shore.

Here in VT I would tend to go for a lake or pond if there was one within glide range, for just the reason you say (trees). But there are some farms as you say (even a few golf courses), and in some cases those would be preferable to water.
 
:yeahthat:

Trees, maybe the only available road is a country road which tend to have power lines on one side but still looks invitingly wide during your emergency...

Sometimes the water is the best choice. And if you choose the water you can try to be close to shore. Then when you are almost landing you can re-assess and go for the beach if it's empty.

Lots of depends and if - then's for this one.
 
The water would be my absolute last case option.. as in, I'm over mountains or a densely populated urban area / city

I would take tall trees any day over a lake. In a Skyhawk or Archer you're probably going 45 knots or so if you stall it into the tops of trees.. I bet there is a pretty good chance of surviving that. On the water though... let's say you don't flip, don't get trapped inside, and don't immediately drown.. then what? Now you're in the middle of a lake.. how many people could swim 1, 2, 3 miles to shore fully clothed with jeans and sneakers. Only to make it to land and then be soaking wet and have hypothermia set in with no equipment to make a shelter, your cell phone trashed, etc. At least if you crash on land and survive you can make a shelter, start a fire, have some materials from the plane's wreckage.. and hike and possibly maybe get a cell signal

P.S. - a lot of lakes will not be that easy to swim in, they'll have felled submerged trees, lots of weeds and seaweed, a swampy muddy bottom... it sounds downright terrible
 
Jim_R said:
His logic was that you could land straight into the wind, and you don't often find power lines or other obstructions across a pond or lake, and (depending on the lake), boats would be less common than cars on a road.
Click to expand...
I'll have to show him the lakes and rivers around here. Power lines cross over them in several locations. Whose to say the lake or pond is large enough to allow a landing in any direction?
Yeah, his logic is a bit off and doesn't account for a few other factors that would play a role.
 
Tantalum said:
...how many people could swim 1, 2, 3 miles to shore fully clothed with jeans and sneakers.

<snip>

P.S. - a lot of lakes will not be that easy to swim in, they'll have felled submerged trees, lots of weeds and seaweed, a swampy muddy bottom... it sounds downright terrible
Click to expand...

1) Why in the wide, wide world of sports would you land miles from the shore? Line up parallel to it and land 50' from the edge.

2) I've flown over, boated, and swam in a ton of lakes. I don't like 'em very much for swimming. But trees and other serious impediments are rare, and I'll take my chances on my Mark Spitz impression over my George of the Jungle impression.
 
If it's 100 foot pine trees like we have in the south or putting it down on the edge of a body of water, I'm probably gonna try my luck in the water, aiming for a shallow edge.

Every situation is different. If I'm in a retract, then that makes the water even more enticing, especially if I'm alone and only have to get myself out.
 
kyleb said:
Why in the wide, wide world of sports would you land miles from the shore? Line up parallel to it and land 50' from the edge.
Click to expand...
After I posted that I thought about that, but I was thinking about what the OP said, and could picture someone landing "into" a 3 knot headwind flying miles away from shore

As in any situation in aviation that's where the individual situation and the pilot's good judgement will come into play

In Cirrus's defense this is where having a parachute would really make that decision much easier, or at least less daunting
 
In most cases dry land will be a better choice, but water ditching as an option should never be ruled out. But the decision adds variables not aviation related, like water temperature and swimming ability. I could swim several miles if necessary, but I know many others can't, and I couldn't do it myself in hypothermic water temperatures. People on the ground, too: empty water may well be preferable to a crowded beach though the beach would the far better choice if it was empty. Those factors would slant the decision in an otherwise identical airborne scenario.

Makes me wonder if aversion to water ditching was a [subconscious] factor when two of my friends were badly injured in a Kolb crash when the engine failed on takeoff and the impossible turn was attempted instead of ditching straight ahead.
 
Jim_R said:
During my PPL checkride, the DPE made a point to emphasize that if I ever had to make a forced landing and a large-enough body of water was nearby, to consider ditching in the water instead of aiming for a road or a field. His logic was that you could land straight into the wind, and you don't often find power lines or other obstructions across a pond or lake, and (depending on the lake), boats would be less common than cars on a road.

I didn't argue with him at the time, but I can see two big downsides to a water ditching. Regardless of aircraft, even if there are no injuries to the occupants, you've still got to get out of the plane and then out of the water to dry ground to be safe. In my sedentary middle-age condition, I'd have a tough time swimming a lap in a neighborhood pool; I'm not confident I (or other passengers) could make the swim successfully. If anyone's injured in the event, that becomes even harder.

And for a fixed gear specifically, the chances of a nose-over seem pretty huge. A belly landing in a retract might be fairly gentle if conditions are right, but I expect a fixed gear ditch is going to be traumatic almost every time.

So I've always discounted the idea of ditching, if I have an option for dry land instead.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Jim,

I'm looking at this from the perspective of the pilots who chose to land in the reservoir near Ft. Collins, Colorado last year. I'm sure Nate can expand on my reply but if memory serves they were well within gliding distance of land but chose the reservoir which still had ice floating on the surface. Both pilots died as a result of their decision to land in water that, due to it's temperature, offered no chance of survival.

Several years back one of my customers ditched his T-210 in Lake Erie just short of the island he was going to. Engine failure. No chance of making land. All aboard survived that ditching for two reasons, the pilot's decision to land gear up and the water temperature. It is speculation on my part but I think the pilots who fly Alaska would choose the trees over water. The survival time in cold water is minutes, and even though I've overflown Lake Michigan and Lake Erie many times I realize there is always risk depending on the water temperature. In the middle of Lake Michigan your options are limited. The best you can hope for are favorable winds that get you back to shore. The normal temperatures of the Great Lakes do not normally favor survival.
 
Stewartb said:
It totally depends on the situation and location. There are no hard and fast rules.
Click to expand...

Where I usually do most of my flying lately, and if I was for some unknown reason flying a single engine, and that engine quit, I would have a choice of large rocks, 70 foot tall trees or 45 degree water. Out on the tundra it is almost a non event landing.
 
I cross sub-40* inlet water below 1200' on pretty much every flight. I'm looking at the beach on one side or the other as the go-to if things get quiet. The water is unfriendly up here.
 
DesertNomad said:
Over a place like Michigan where there are lots of trees, I would opt for a lake over tall trees. Water temperature plays a factor too of course.
Click to expand...

Down here Water temps are not a problem in the lakes and streams. Being eaten by a 15 Foot Alligator after you survive the crash is the problem. Body of water only? I would ditch near the ocean where it's shallow enough to get out and walk to shore, hopefully I can save the passengers and myself.
 
Stewartb said:
I cross sub-40* inlet water below 1200' on pretty much every flight. I'm looking at the beach on one side or the other as the go-to if things get quiet. The water is unfriendly up here.
Click to expand...

I was always really nervous flying the channel between Haines and Skagway in a single engine. Well within gliding distance to shore, but the shore comes out of the water at about a 60 degree angle.
 
A fixed gear airplane will usually flip inverted during a water landing. How good are you at getting out of a sinking upside plane and do you carry PFDs?

 
'Depends, for sure. Lake Powell looks real inviting compared to the alternative of miles of rock canyons, but a nice plowed field would look even nicer. If water is my choice, I'll go parallel to a beach, or near some boaters. It's important either way, to protect your head, if possible.

It's nice having a 'Chute... gives you even more options.
 
At least 3 times. Soft field landing technique, like a 3 pointer, tail down first.
That doesn't count emergencies with float planes. :)
You did say fixed gear, right? Floats are pretty well fixed.

I have also made a couple of emergency landings with a (non-amphibious) float plane (J3) on grass, If you want to add all the fixed gear possibilities.

Now I need to go fly.
The J3.
Not on floats.
 
FloridaPilot said:
Down here Water temps are not a problem in the lakes and streams. Being eaten by a 15 Foot Alligator after you survive the crash is the problem. Body of water only? I would ditch near the ocean where it's shallow enough to get out and walk to shore, hopefully I can save the passengers and myself.
Click to expand...

Nope not me.jpg
 
Clip4 said:
A fixed gear airplane will usually flip inverted during a water landing. How good are you at getting out of a sinking upside plane and do you carry PFDs?
Click to expand...

That's nowhere near a conclusive statement. It's certainly a widespread assumption.

However, one can draw some conclusions from the experiences of the large number of ditching survivors who have been interviewed or about whom news articles have been written. I have personally interviewed many such survivors (or their rescuers) in the past five years, approximately half of whom were flying fixed-gear, high-wing aircraft. Only three reported flipping over and completing the water landing upside down, and all survived the experience.
Click to expand...

https://www.avweb.com/news/safety/183010-1.html

There's too much fear mongering about water landings in fixed gear for my tastes. There could be some people dead today who might of lived had they not heard "always go into the trees over water" repeated by someone. The egress rate for water ditchings in that article is cited as 95%. Planes don't sink right away, even if they flip and almost everyone gets out alive initially. It's not the landing that kills you. Furthermore, the survival rate is 88% for water ditchings (in this article at the time, but we all still fly the same types of planes). The inland water ditching survival rate is 95%.

The big issue with deciding whether to go into the water is water temperature, not worrying about flipping. If it's warm enough outside, water landings should be part of your decision making process and not written off.
 
Last edited:
1600vw said:
Your instructor was an idiot. If you have an option never go for water go for land. What a bone head instructor. Amazes me some try to instruct at all. Problem they believe they know what they are talking about.


Tony
Click to expand...
Not that it will (or should) change your mind, but it wasn't his instructor. It was his DPE on his checkride.

He also said to "consider a water landing", not to automatically opt for it.
 
Clip4 said:
A fixed gear airplane will usually flip inverted during a water landing. How good are you at getting out of a sinking upside plane and do you carry PFDs?

Click to expand...

That was a pretty lame dunk tank. The one I took sat you in a sled which slid down a track to the water, then hit a dead stop that flipped the sled into the water upside down. It wasn't sitting in a open seat and then slowly rotated into the water. The one I was in was a little rough but nothing like the real thing.

I fly over water, flotation devices are in the seat backs. But I prefer the ones that are like a belt that is worn around the waist during the flight. Depart the plane then pull the cord. No digging in the seat back for a flotation device.
 
1600vw said:
Your instructor was an idiot. If you have an option never go for water go for land. What a bone head instructor. Amazes me some try to instruct at all. Problem they believe they know what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

"Never go for water?" Based on what?

As long as hypothermia isn't a factor, you have a higher chance of survival in a water landing over going into the trees or rocky, uneven terrain. The latest numbers put water ditching survival rates at over 90% and there are tons of fixed gear aircraft mixed in those results. Then consider whether you are more likely to be seriously injured going into the trees or in a water landing as that's another factor.

Tantalum said:
The water would be my absolute last case option.. as in, I'm over mountains or a densely populated urban area / city

I would take tall trees any day over a lake. In a Skyhawk or Archer you're probably going 45 knots or so if you stall it into the tops of trees.. I bet there is a pretty good chance of surviving that. On the water though... let's say you don't flip, don't get trapped inside, and don't immediately drown.. then what? Now you're in the middle of a lake.. how many people could swim 1, 2, 3 miles to shore fully clothed with jeans and sneakers. Only to make it to land and then be soaking wet and have hypothermia set in with no equipment to make a shelter, your cell phone trashed, etc. At least if you crash on land and survive you can make a shelter, start a fire, have some materials from the plane's wreckage.. and hike and possibly maybe get a cell signal

P.S. - a lot of lakes will not be that easy to swim in, they'll have felled submerged trees, lots of weeds and seaweed, a swampy muddy bottom... it sounds downright terrible
Click to expand...

I get the fear, but the numbers are what they are. The inland water ditching survival rate is 95% (out over deep ocean is slightly worse in the high 80s, but at that point you ain't got a choice anyway). Do you think 95% of landings into trees or rocky terrain result in no fatalities? What about the difference in probability of major injuries?

If you've got an airport, road, or field, that's one thing.

But when you start talking about some other situations where it's tall trees or rocks only, water becomes not just an option, but easily the best option. Not just because of impact injuries, but also fuel tanks rupturing and catching fire.
 
Last edited:
Bonchie said:
"Never go for water?" Based on what?

As long as hypothermia isn't a factor, you have a higher chance of survival in a water landing over going into the trees or rocky, uneven terrain. The latest numbers put water ditching survival rates at over 90% and there are tons of fixed gear aircraft mixed in those results. Then consider whether you are more likely to be seriously injured going into the trees or in a water landing as that's another factor.
Click to expand...

The OP states that if there are field or roads take the water first. This is what the DPE said to him. He is an idoit stating this. If you have roads or fields land there before any water landing. Simple.

Tony
 
1600vw said:
The OP states that if there are field or roads take the water first. This is what the DPE said to him. He is an idoit stating this. If you have roads or fields land there before any water landing. Simple.

Tony
Click to expand...

One, that's not what you said though. You said never go for water if land is an option. That's ridiculous.

Two, it's not that simple. What kind of field is it? How big is it? What's the terrain like? Is the road narrow between trees? Are there others that could be injured? Furthermore, the survival rate is practically identical regardless of which option you take (unless we are talking deep blue water, but you have no choice anyway at that point). So the stats don't make him an idiot. They just make him someone who made a different determination.

And let's be real. The entire underlying premise of this thread is based on the false idea that fixed gear planes always flip in water. The reality is most don't, and even if they do, almost everyone gets out regardless.
 
1600vw said:
The OP states that if there are field or roads take the water first. This is what the DPE said to him. He is an idoit stating this. If you have roads or fields land there before any water landing. Simple.

Tony
Click to expand...
He said "consider" the water.
 
Kritchlow said:
Not that it will (or should) change your mind, but it wasn't his instructor. It was his DPE on his checkride.

He also said to "consider a water landing", not to automatically opt for it.
Click to expand...

If you have other options why would you be wasting energy thinking about using the water. If no other option its a no brainer. Go for the water. But that was not how the question was posted or asked.
 
1600vw said:
If you have other options why would you be wasting energy thinking about using the water. If no other option its a no brainer. Go for the water. But that was not how the question was posted or asked.
Click to expand...
Personally I would consider all options.
 
Kritchlow said:
He said "consider" the water.
Click to expand...

How many have had an engine out? You pick a landing spot and use it. You do not go. I may land here, no wait I will land here, no wait I will land here. You do not have that much time, even at 1000'. been there done that. You pick a spot and all your brain power is focused on that landing.
 
1600vw said:
How many have had an engine out? You pick a landing spot and use it. You do not go. I may land here, no wait I will land here, no wait I will land here. You do not have that much time, even at 1000'. been there done that. You pick a spot and all your brain power is focused on that landing.
Click to expand...
Many years back when I used to instruct I always had my students weigh their options of where to go for an engine failure. Now, if it's low level as you suggest, those options become limited.

My two first steps I taught for an engine failure:

1) Pitch for best glide and trim for it.
2) Pick a landing spot and turn toward it.

Everything else is nice, but those are the biggies imo.
 
Kritchlow said:
Many years back when I used to instruct I always had my students weigh their options of where to go for an engine failure. Now, if it's low level as you suggest, those options become limited.

My two first steps I taught for an engine failure:

1) Pitch for best glide and trim for it.
2) Pick a landing spot and turn toward it.

Everything else is nice, but those are the biggies imo.
Click to expand...

I have my spot picked before the engine ever goes silent. I fly from one landing spot to the next. Once I over fly this spot I fly to the next. But again I ask. How many have had an engine out? Have a few and you will fly like this too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top