Turbine Engines - Differences between types?

Just wondering if someone can point me in the right direction of a site

or book that will explain the differences between Rolls-Royce Vs P&W
and GE engines on the 747? or if someone could explain some of the
basic differences, pro's con's etc, it would be of great benifit!
Thanks

#2
(permalin
k)

5th August 2002, 14:18

Bally Heck

Try this
for a
start.

Join Date: Oct 1999

Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 384

#3 (permalink)

6th August 2002, 15:47

Flight Detent
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Brisbane,
Australia
Posts: 876

My pennies worth: (for the B747)

Rollers are not reliable enough, and are way to heavy,
and fuel efficiency is a problem.
P&W are much more of a 'hardier' machine, but are not
very powerful, and not very fuel efficient, by
comparison.
GE seem to make a good allround machine, light
weight, fuel efficient, and able to stand the occasional
bird down the intake.
They just seem to last for a long time. (MTBF)
And, of course, they don't use EPR for output
indication.
For me, the best choice, all round!
Cheers

#4 (permalink)

6th August 2002, 20:51

acheo

There are sub-categories of turbine engines:

Join Date: Jun 2002

Location: canada
Posts: 15

1- turbo-prop
2- turbo-jet
3- turbo-fan
All these engines use a turbine but for different
reasons. Start from this

7th August 2002, 09:21

#5 (permalink)

Flight Detent
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Brisbane,
Australia
Posts: 876

Hi all,
As far as I am aware, the B747 has only two "subcatagories" of turbine engines, a/ turbofan x 4, and, b/
APU!

#6 (permalink)

7th August 2002, 14:26

acheo

soryy guys...I guess I misread the question

Join Date: Jun 2002

Location: canada
Posts: 15

#7 (permalink)

7th August 2002, 15:49

Freek Flyer

Thanks guys, getting there,

Join Date: Mar 2000

Location: Melbourne, VIC,
Australia
Posts: 73

I've read elswere the major benifit of the rb-211 was

it's reliability, anyone else with experience heard this? I
realise the RR is by far the most expensive, what would
be the benifit of an operator choosing this type of eng?
I've heard rumblings about the length of the engine (RR
being shorter) and therefore increasing efficiency? Or is
this Nonsense?
Thanks for the continued help!

7th August 2002, 16:36

gas path
Usual disclaimers apply!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: windsor
Posts: 622

7th August 2002, 20:10

#8 (permalink)

There is very little difference to choose between all 3

engine types when it comes to out and out reliability ie
engine failures.
The RB211 is the heaviest of the 3 but when you take
the weight of the powerplant, the Royce includes the
complete pod, thrust reverser and the rest of the
associated junk
The other two types the thrust
reverser is Boeing, part of the airframe and stays
attached to the same during an engine change for
example.
The Royce has a better S.F.C over the life of the engine
with a lower deterioration in efficiency.
FWIW it is a delight to work on very straight forward
and no unneccessary complications.
The Royce is a three shaft layout the other two have
two shafts.
One minor point the other two rotate the wrong way

#9

(permalink
)

tinyrice
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Minneapolis, MN,USA.
Posts: 148

The
reverser is
part of the
P&W JT9D
engine
and goes
with it
when it's
changed like the
Roller

B777 Single engine Take-off

A few months ago a BA 777 in Riyadh had an engine failure during the takeoff roll which was obviously past V1 as the aircraft went airborne. A few
guys on board swore that they felt that the thrust of the good engine was
reduced as they got airborne. This has caused quite a bit of banter as to if
this happened or was perceived to have happened due to lack of cabin noise
My question is does the B777 automatically compensate for asymetric thrust
by reducing thrust on the good engine when past V1?
Any B777 guru's answer this one!
Cheers

8th September 2002, 20:48

Young Paul
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Inside the M25
Posts: 427

#2
(permalink
)

Adds a
whole
possible
new
dimension
to the
briefing.
"In the
event of
an engine
failure, we
always
have the
option of
reducing
power on
the
remaining
engine...."

9th September 2002,

04:22

Old Dog
Posts: n/a

#3 (permalink)

Could the reduction of cabin noise be due to reduced air

flow from the air conditioning system? With one engine
out, the air flow halves immediately (hence the reduced
noise), then as the system stabilize, air flow recovers
gradually to "high" flow a while later?
I am on the B747. I am just guessing here.

9th September 2002,

05:17

mutt
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 3,312

#4 (permalink)

The aircraft doesnt automatically compensate by

reducing thrust, the only immediate automatic reaction
AFAIK is compensating for the yaw by use of the
rudder.
Although RUH is a pretty high airport, it isnt surrounded
by any obstructions, the MFRH surrounding this airport
is therefore 400 feet, i dont know what the MFRH BA
uses, but it is possible that the aircraft transitioned
from a takeoff attitude to an acceleration attitude which
would resemble a loss of thrust due to the decrease in
climb rate.
Cheers
Mutt.

9th September 2002,

11:40

777AV8R
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: BC
Posts: 157

#5 (permalink)

The answer to the question is: Yes, the B777 does

compensate for yaw automatically during a power loss.
Actually, there need only be a 10% power loss between
the left and right engine to affect thrust assymetry
compensation.
The amount of rudder supplied is about 90%, leaving
some room for the flight crew to 'fine tune' the final
trimming.
I'm not sure of BA's SOP regarding their engine failure
procedure, thus can't answer for a possible thrust
reduction.
If the aircraft was flown in VNAV, there are several
automatic functions that take place during the flight
profile and it wouldn't be fair to make any guesses of
the flight crew as to what was happening on their
aircraft. Suffice to say, the airplane is a breeze to fly
when all the automation is working correctly.

"Engine Failure?......Ho Hum...ring the bell and ask for

another cup of coffee while this thing sorts itself out"!

13th September 2002,

11:07

ravenx
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 76

#6 (permalink)

OK I know I'm gonna sound ignorant here but what's

VNAV (and is this related to something I've heard called
LNAV)

13th September 2002,

16:18

#7 (permalink)

Tonic Please

VNAV LNAV

Join Date: Jul 2002

Location: Paris, France.
Age: 24
Posts: 617

VNAV = Vertical Navigation. LNAV = Lateral Navigation.

LNAV is illuminated when pushed. Arms or engages
LNAV mode. If armed, LNAV is annunciated in white on
primary flight displays. Active roll is not affected. If
LNAV is armed and the airplane is above 50ft and
within 2.5 NM of the active leg, LNAV engages.
Thats a few...
Now VNAV...If VNAV is armed and the airplane is above
400ft with the FMC (flight management computer) Perf
Init page completed (Performance Initialisation), LNAV
in engaged. Thus, VNAV SPD, VNAV PATH, or VNAV ALT
is annunciated on the PFD's (primary flight displays) in
green. When VNAV is engaged, the system commands
pitch to maintain FMC altitude...
Again, a few...
This is 747. I presume it is the same for Airbus?
Smooth skies

13th September 2002,

22:06

Young Paul
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Inside the M25
Posts: 427

#8 (permalink)

Yes in broad terms. No in detail.

13th September 2002,

22:09

#9 (permalink)

Tonic Please

Thanks

Join Date: Jul 2002

Location: Paris, France.
Age: 24
Posts: 617

Simplicity really IS the key to genius then

Smooth skies.

15th September 2002,

19:14

#10 (permalink)

Human Factor
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone
near 30W
Posts: 1,478

The 777 does not reduce thrust to compensate for an

engine failure. Among other things, this goes against
common sense. During an engine failure, when there is
a significant difference in thrust, the TAC (Thrust
Assymetry Compensation) automatically applies
sufficient rudder in the appropriate direction. The engine
thrust will remain at the pre-programmed value unless
the auto-throttle is disconnected and the thrust levers
are physically moved. Once the aeroplane is at
acceleration altitude and clean (gear & flaps up), the
thrust will reduce to maximum continuous thrust (MCT)
as the aeroplane climbs to the next altitude either in the
FMC or the MCP altitude window.
The reduced cabin noise is likely to be due to half the
original amount of bleed air being pumped through the
air-con and half the engine noise!!
In the meantime, well done to the guys concerned. The
outcome was never in doubt.
Last edited by Human Factor : 16th Septe

regarding engines

question:
what do you mean by or how do you "flat" rate an
engine????
is this the same as derating? and what are the
advantages???
thanks!

11th September 2002,

01:15

turboshaft
Join Date: Nov 2000

#2 (permalink)

Similar but distinct. Derating an engine is done primarily

to reduce engine temps and thereby extend life. The
disadvantage is obviously a reduction in available

Location: Indianapolis, IN,

USA
Posts: 74

performance. Flat rating an engine can also extend life

(depending on operational usage), but is principally
done to guarantee performance at non-ISA 'standard'
altitudes or ambient temps.
Cheers,
t/shaft

11th September 2002,

02:40

1515Blue

#3 (permalink)

thanks but how exactly do you flat rate an engine??

Join Date: Jun 2002

Location: a-c-ya
Posts: 36

11th September 2002,

02:51

Thunder Child

#4 (permalink)

Via the FMC I believe.........

Join Date: Jul 2002

Location: Heathrow
Posts: 41

11th September 2002,

05:27

planett
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Great Plains
Posts: 23

#5 (permalink)

In the turboprop world, this can be done by limiting

torque to a value below what the engine is capable of
producing. In some cases far below. The result is max
power limitations due to torque on all but the hottest
weather. It's satisfying to see max torque set (or just
available) through 10000' without reaching temp limits.
A good example is the TPE 331 - 10 installed on Metro
II's, using the -3 gearbox. No need to re-write the
Flight Manual for performance, since no credit is given
for the excess power available, but the benefits are
evident on warm days or at altitude.

11th September 2002,

05:36

Capt Claret
Bottums Up

Join Date: Feb 2000

Location: dunnunda

#6 (permalink)

Perhaps I have the wrong end of the bull, so to speak. I

always thought "flat rating" refered to the maximum
OAT at which the engine would produce rated power.
For example the ALF-502 produces 6970 lb thrust at
sea level at up to 15 degrees C, that is, it's Flat Rated

Age: 52
Posts: 2,329

to 15 degrees C. Where as the LF507 produces 7000 lb

at sea level to 23.3 degrees C, that is, it's Flat Rated to
23.3 degrees C.

11th September 2002,

06:28

mutt
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 3,312

#7 (permalink)

If you look at a net thrust chart, you will see the

amount of thrust that the engine is capable of
producing versus the temperature, in most cases that i
have seen, jet engines are capable of producing their
RATED thrust up to ISA+15 or 30C, after that the
amount of thrust decreases. The term used is that
these engines are FLAT RATED to ISA+15 (Or whatever
the temp is).
As a crewmember you have NO control over the flat
rated temperature, it is a certified level dictated my the
manufacturer.
Totally different to DERATED.
Mutt
Last edited by mutt : 11th September 2002 at 06:35.

15th September 2002,

18:24

#8 (permalink)

Flight Detent

Right 'mutt',

Join Date: Jan 2002

Location: Brisbane,
Australia
Posts: 876

it's all pre-determined by the settings on the fuel

control, with it's determination of the OAT and
P/ALTITUDE combinations!
No input allowable from the crew (or maintenance), it's
factory set!
DERATE is set by the crew, as part of company policy,
to lower the internal temperatures of the engine, and,
as a result, reduce the power output, to extend the
service life of the engine.
Cheers

#9 (permalink)

16th September 2002, 13:45

SuperRanger

1515,

Join Date: Nov 2001

Location: KUL
Posts: 211

what acft do you fly? on the boeings that i

flew B744 (GE & PW), B734 (CFM) and now
the B777 (RR Trent), they are all 'flat-rated'

to ISA+15__C. just as mutt said, they

produce max thrust at ISA+15C. you can try
this out. when the OAT < 30C, try entering a
SEL TEMP (derate) of less than 30C, you will
noticed then TO thrust will NOT reduce
beyond that of 30C.
SR

16th September 2002, 21:49

mutt
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 3,312

#10 (permalink)

Just to take this a little bit further, FAA

regulations restrict thrust reductions to 25%
of the rated engine, (I presume that the
JARs are the same.) This thrust reduction
comes with strict limitations on its use, such
as the runway surface condition, mels/cdls,
periodic checks etc. Initially the crew
performed this form of DERATING by fooling
the engine into thinking that the outside
temperature was hotter than it actually was,
these were called "assumed temperature
derates".
Although ATM Derates were sufficient for
older engines they werent sufficient for
modern day engines, which are generally
overpowered, the engine manufacturers
introduced a second method of further
reducing the engine thrust, which were called
fixed Derates. Fixed Derates are basically
take an engine and pretend that its a smaller
engine. The size of this size reduction are
usually airline selectable and can be as much
as 30-35% less than the installed engines
thrust.
Fixed Derates have a number of operational
advantages:
1: Less restrictive than the assumed
temperature method.
2: Permits a greater thrust reduction when
combined with assumed temperature thrust
reductions.
3: The lower Thrust/VMCG may allow greater
limited takeoff weights on certain
contaminated runway lengths.
This decrease in takeoff/climb thrust is
reflected in lower engine temperatures that
increases engine life and reduces
maintenance costs. These maintenance cost
savings are considered more beneficial than
the extra amount of fuel required for the
slower climb associated with the reduced

thrust.
Theoretically this all sounds great, but Im
still waiting for certain engine manufacturers
to financially justify derating engines above
10%.
But you should be able to see that Derates
are a totally different kettle of fish to Flat
Rating
Mutt.
Last edited by mutt : 16th September
1 pilot leaves f/d - Oxygen compulsory?

I heard once that (with a 2-man flightdeck) if one pilot

leaves to use the toilet or something the other pilot must go
on oxygen?
Is this still the case? Seems a bit OTT. Just wondering
anyway, when I jumpseated an Airtours 763 home from
Calgary in 1998 the F/o went to the loo for 5 mins and the
Captain didn't use Oxygen, just kept chatting to me. Forgot
to ask him at the time.
Thanks for any replies.

#2 (permalink)

2nd October 2002, 17:12

RadarContact

Definately not! I surely do not put on the

oxygen mask each time the chief takes a
leak...

Join Date: Feb 2002

Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 261

I think the requirement to have on crew

member (one of two total, that is) wear the
oxy-mask at any time ist above FL 410 only...

#3 (permalink)

2nd October 2002, 17:42

bookworm
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 2,795

FAR 121.333
Quote:

(2) When operating at flight altitudes above flight

level 250, one pilot at the controls of the airplane
shall at all times wear and use an oxygen mask
secured, sealed, and supplying oxygen, in accordance
with the following:
(i) The one pilot need not wear and use an oxygen
mask at or below the following flight levels if each
flight crewmember on flight deck duty has a quickdonning type of oxygen mask ...:

(A) For airplanes ... of more than 30 seats, ... at or

below flight level 410.
(B) For airplanes ... of less than 31 seats, ... at or
below flight level 350.
(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(2) of this section,
if for any reason at any time it is necessary for one
pilot to leave his station at the controls of the
airplane when operating at flight altitudes above
flight level 250, the remaining pilot at the controls
shall put on and use his oxygen mask until the other
pilot has returned to his duty station.
I don't know how the UK regulations compare, but the
FARs appear consistent with the requirement LG heard to
use oxygen if the other crewmember leaves the flight
deck.
#4 (permalink)

3rd October 2002, 00:49

m&v

In canada the 410 rule applies

Join Date: Dec 1999

Location: delta.bc.canada
Posts: 259

#5 (permalink)

3rd October 2002, 11:09

BlueEagle
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,252

It used to be compulsory in Australia above 10,000' not sure if this still applies as i don't have their ANO
now.

#6 (permalink)

3rd October 2002, 11:50

mono
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 396

The reason your pilot did not don his O2 mask is

because the 76 (as do most modern transport a/c)
satisfies para 2(i) in that the masks are quick donning
type.
You literally pull the mask out of its housing and pop it
over your head. When you let go of the paddles (which
were grasped to remove the mask) the mask then self
seals around your nose and mouth. The action takes no
more than 3 seconds, a little more if the pilot wears
glasses.

#7 (permalink)

3rd October 2002, 16:40

Wino
Union Goon

Mono

Join Date: Feb 2000

Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,063

Para 2 referrs to when 2 pilots are in the cockpit.

In the USA above 250 when only one pilot is at the
controlls the FAA requires that he wear and use his 02
Cheers
Wino

4th October 2002, 15:01

#8 (permalink)

quid
still learning....
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 169

I agree with bookworm and Wino on this subject. If

operating under FARs Part 121, it makes no difference if
it's quick donning or not. If one pilot leaves his/her seat
above FL250, the other puts on the mask.
Part 135 ops only require it above FL 350. The rules in
other states may well be different.
Those who have experienced a rapid/explosive
decompression (either in real life or a pressure
chamber) are not so cavalier about this. You want it
ON, not just handy.

5th October 2002, 02:17

GlueBall
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 1,970

#9 (permalink)

The only time I do that drill is if an FAA inspector is in

the cockpit. I'm a firm believer in at least five seconds
of consciousness for me to get my mask on between at
FL260 and FL410! Experts have said that even at
FL410, the average reasonable healthy person would
sustain at least 15 seconds of useful consciousness.
This old regulation has been on the books since the
beginning of time; there to protect the worst of the
chain smoking nicotine and caffeine addicted pilots,
flight engineers, navigators and radio operators. In the
old days the cockpit was a smoking lounge, even stews
would come up for a cigarette break.

13th October 2002, 23:10

Pub User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Grobelling
through the murk to the
sunshine above.
Posts: 393

#10 (permalink)

When I first joined the Air Force we had to do a

chamber decompression to 30,000'. Although the initial
decompression was a bit of a shock , we all had a few
minutes of 'useful consciousness' before we were
allowed to mask up. We also had several cubic yards of
foul-smelling gases coming out of our a**es!

f you fly much over the water--even if just over larger bays and lakes--you've had to
quell the uneasiness that arises when the engine goes into "auto rough" mode the
instant you're beyond gliding range of shore. Not to worry; it's not just you.
The prospect of going into the water in an airplane terrifies most pilots, chiefly
because few of us are well prepared for it and, in general, instructors don't know
enough about the relevant risks to make well-informed judgments about overwater
flying. As a result, many myths and half-truths about ditching seem to persist, handed
down from one pilot to the next who "read something" or "knows someone who knew
someone" who vanished without a trace in Lake Michigan on a fine sunny day after a
botched ditching.
The truth is, overall, ditching is one of the most survivable emergency procedures any
pilot can perform. Although survival rates vary by time of year and water-body type,
the overall general aviation ditching survival rate is 90 percent, and if you ignore blue
water ferry operations, fatalities are actually quite rare.

Trolling NTSB Records

How do we know? We recently reviewed eight years worth of ditching accidents,
from 1985 to 1990 and 1994 and 1996. There's no particular magic to these years;
they were picked arbitrarily in conjunction with another research project; 1996 is the
most recent year in which complete data appears to be available.
That said, here's a disclaimer: NTSB data is occasionally incomplete or inaccurate. It's
quite possible that some ditchings go unreported since lost aircraft aren't always
recovered. We have no evidence that a large number of ditchings are unreported, but
we're confident that at least some are. On the other hand, there's no reason to believe
that an unreported ditching wasn't successful either. The usual grain-of-salt advice
applies.

The good news is that ditchings appear to be trending downward, from an average of
30 a year in the mid-1980s to 12 to 15 incidents per year more recently. We don't

know why this is so, but it could be due to NTSB reporting procedures or just less
flying activity or both. In any case, we think the accident record is accurate enough to
draw some broad conclusions.
But first, let's define what a ditching is: An intentional water landing in which the
aircraft touches down under control. In reviewing the accident data, we ignored
accidents which appeared to be "water crashes," high speed impacts, stall spins or
spirals. Surprisingly, reading the accident reports, it's usually easy to distinguish one
from the other, although there's admittedly some fuzzy overlap.
With this in mind, the NTSB's database revealed 179 bonafide ditchings during the
eight years we examined. Poring over these records, we made some interesting
discoveries, most of which should take some of the terror out of overwater flying. We
think our findings tend to dispel some of the misconceptions about ditching, which
are, in no particular order:

Myth 1: Most Ditchings Aren't Survivable

If you believe this, you've been led seriously astray. Of the 179 ditchings we
reviewed, only 22, or 12 percent, resulted in fatalities. Although survival rates vary by
time of year and water-body type, the overall general aviation ditching survival rate is
88 percent. Yet, even that record is somewhat misleading; the potential ditching
survival rate is actually a bit better.

To understand why, let's define two terms: "egress rate" and "survival rate." For our
purposes, successful egress means that one or more occupants exited the aircraft
safely after the ditching and got into the water relatively unscathed. Survival means
that all of the occupants were rescued or swam to shore under their own power. In
other words, the ditching accident resulted in no fatalities.
According to our review of the record, the successful egress rate is 92 percent,
meaning that in more than nine out of 10 cases, at least some of the occupants got out
of the airplane and ultimately survived the experience. In a few of these casesseven,
to be exactsome or all of the occupants got out and then drowned or succumbed to

exposure while in the water. It's fair to conclude that in several (if not all) of these
accidents, survival equipment would have made the difference.
In one such fatal accident in the Atlantic near Nantucket island, the aircraft was found
with the doors open and seatbelts released, but only the pilot's body was recovered ten
days later. The passenger's body was never recovered. Obviously, both occupants
exited the aircraft. In all likelihood, a raft or life vests would have saved them but the
aircraft with equipped with neither. Ironically, the NTSB investigation revealed that
the pilot owned survival equipment, but it was stored in his hangar. He had just
bought the airplane and evidently hadn't transferred the gear.
If you exclude what we consider to be the high-risk over water operations--the long
distance ocean ferry flights that are only a small part of the total over water flying-the egress rate rises to an astonishing 95 percent. We have little doubt that with even
minimal survival equipment, the total ditching survival rate would be nearly as high.
Where and when you ditch matters more than what you ditch.
Examining the fatal accidents, we found that two-thirds of the 22
occurred during the winter in cold or temperate climates and 12
percent are what we call "blue water" ditchings in the open Atlantic
or Pacific, done by ferry pilots on extraordinary missions in light
singles or twins, or fish spotters operating far from shore.
Since ferry and fish-spotting missions are really beyond the ken of
everyday general aviation operations, throwing these out of the
equation pushes the survival rate to an encouraging 90 percent.

Myth 2: If I Have to Ditch, I'm Better Off in a Low

Wing Than a High Wing Airplane
You won't convince us of that. Of the 179 ditchings, 87 involved high wing airplanes
(49 percent), 73 were low wings (41 percent), and the rest were helicopters.
Yet, in the subgroup that involved fatalities, high wing airplanes were noticeably
underepresented: Although they were involved in 49 percent of all the ditchings, they
represent only 27 percent of the fatalities. On the other hand, low wing airplanes
represent 41 percent of the total ditchings, but accounted for 68 percent of the
fatalities.
We don't make a great deal of this finding due to the small actual numbers involved,
other than to note that it doesn't at all support the widely held notion that high wing
airplanes sink to their struts and trap the occupants. If high wing airplanes are more
difficult to get out of in the water--and we think that's debatable--it certainly doesn't
keep people from getting out of them. Which leads directly to myth number 3

Myth 3: During Ditchings, Many Airplanes Nose

Under and Sink Like a Submarine With All
Hands
Pure poppycock. That's not to say this can't happen or that it hasn't. However, it
appears to occur only in extreme circumstances.
For example, in one blue water accident, a ferry pilot eastbound from Canada to
Europe in a Cessna 210 planned a fuel stop in Greenland but had to push on to Iceland
due to poor winter weather. He ran low on fuel and had to ditch in the Atlantic at
night, with 35-knot winds and high seas. Despite having rendezvoused with a C-130
SAR patrol which lighted the ocean with flares, the Centurion disappeared without a
trace, taking both pilot and co-pilot with it. A couple of other ferry flights vanished
over the horizon far out at sea, after reporting engine trouble.
But, these aren't the sort of conditions you'd expect to encounter on an afternoon flight
to the Bahamas or Santa Catalina. In such circumstances, there's simply no evidence
that the airplane will head straight for the bottom during a ditching that's pulled off
reasonably well. The accident record shows that the touchdown may be violent and
wet, but not likely a scene from Run Silent, Run Deep.
Leading right into Myth 4...

Myth 4: An Open Ocean Ditching is Unlikely

to be Survivable
Not really. During the seven year period, we found 22 blue water
ditchings. These are long-range ferry flights over the Atlantic or Pacific
or fish spotters operating far from shore.
According to our records sweep, there were four fatalities in this group of
22, for a survival rate of 82 percent, not too much worse than it is for
inshore ditchings.
Admittedly, it's quite possible that our research failed to turn up aircraft that went
missing with no reports filed. It happens. We simply don't know how often it happens.
Even if we missed a dozen such accidents, the key point remains unchanged: The
Coast Guard, Navy and merchant vessels routinely fish pilots from the ocean. No
doubt blue water ditchings are higher risk, but they certainly don't pose a grim
survival outlook, either.

Myth 5: In A Retractable, It's Better to Ditch With

the Gear Up Than the Gear Down

Ya Gotta Hate It When...

[ links open new browser window ]

This one has sparked more hangar arguments than

debating over pitch and power. Here's our view: It
probably doesn't make much measurable difference.
Or, put another way, if you think it does, show us
some data.
Unfortunately, the accident records shed no useful
light on this controversy. Pilots often don't remember
whether they extended gear and/or flaps; they don't
recall if they landed with the swells or upwind or
crosswind. Even if they do remember, this detail often
doesn't make it into the accident summary.
We think the best you can do is to examine the big
picture: Irrespective of aircraft configuration, do the
pilots and crew get out of the airplane after impact?
Yes, overwhelmingly. How often does the airplane flip
over because the gear caught in the water? We don't
really know. But even if all the airplanes flipped-highly unlikely--the occupants still manage to egress
safely. Conclusion: It may not matter much.
From films of live ditchings and interviews with
survivors, our impression is that most airplanes don't
flip, but dig in one wing, turn and settle upright or
settle straight ahead with a bit of nose under moment.
But, we simply don't have enough reliable information
to make a definitive judgement on this. Our best
advice is make your own assessment and configure
the airplane accordingly.
More critical than configuration, in our view, is
touching down parallel to the swells, or if that isn't an
issue in calmer water, landing into the wind or with
the river's current to yield the lowest possible
touchdown speed.
Worth noting is that 9 of the 22 fatal ditchings
involved retractables. As with the high wing versus
low wing controversy, these numbers are too small to
draw any meaningful conclusions.

Myth 6: High Wing Airplanes

Almost Always Flip Over
During Ditchings
See Myth 5. The accident record simply doesn't
support this impression. In the 179 accidents we

Your co-pilot suggests you reconsider

that ditching and he's proven right.
On June 26, 1989, the pilot of a DC-3
flying near Petersburg, Alaska noted that
the fabric on one of the airplane's ailerons
separated after takeoff. Further noting that
his control wheel appeared to have gone
slack, the pilot elected to ditch the
airplane, using rudder and differential
power. A mechanic-pilot in the right seat
reported that his control wheel was
functioning normally, an observation which
the Captain rejected. Post-ditching
investigation revealed that the mechanic
was right.
www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/SEA/89A122.htm
A little engine out practice turns into a
swim.
A multi-engine student and CFI departed
St. Petersburg, Florida on July 29th, 1987
for some engine out work in an Aztec. After
shutting down the left engine, the student
performed the proper engine-out
procedure but the airplane wouldn't
maintain altitude. Unable to re-start the
engine, they ditched in a shallow bay. The
fact that the left main gear was extended
evidently didn't help much.
www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/MIA/87A216.htm
When your mountain flying lessons
don't pan out just right.
A Cherokee pilot departed Knoxville on
August 14th, 1987, lost power shortly after
takeoff and ditched in a river. The accident
probe revealed that the mixture was more
than a full inch from rich, the pilot having
ground leaned before takeoff due to high
density altitude.
www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/ATL/87A231.htm
Those pesky tiedown ropes actually
hold something.
A Bell 206 pilot was attempting takeoff
from an overwater platform with the nose
tiedown still attached. The helo pitched
forward into the water but the pilot
escaped with a back injury.
www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/FTW/85A360.htm
The Feds question your dedication to
ongoing maintenance.
The pilot of an MU-2 went swimming off
Jacksonville, Florida in January of 1990
after the aircraft wouldn't maintain altitude
following an engine failure. Investigators
couldn't understand why the prop controls
didn't work quite right but the fact that the
airplane hadn't had an annual in six years
may have had something to do with it.
www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/MIA/90A051.htm
The Coast Guard keeps interrupting
your naps.
The pilot of a Seneca took off from
Springfield, Kentucky on a flight to
Panama City, Florida on February 14th,
1994. Five hours later, he woke up over
the Gulf of Mexico with 20 minutes of fuel
remaining. A distress call on 121.5 mhz
raised Coast Guard assistance and he was
directed to St. Petersburg, Florida. He ran
out of gas 70 miles short and was picked
up by a Coast Guard helo.
www.ntsb.gov/aviation/mia/94a076.htm
A local yachtsman pulls a Stanley Lord
on you.
A student pilot on his first solo cross
country in a Cessna 152 was stunned
when the engine quit 5.2 hours into an
unrefueled flight. Ditching near Marathon,
Florida, he was certain a nearby pleasure
craft had seen him splash down. It sailed
away. (Stanley Lord, by the way, was the
Captain of the Californian, a vessel which
never quite deduced that blazing white
rockets fired by the Titanic meant, "I'm

reviewed, only one mentioned flipping over on impact. It was a high wing, fixed-gear
single (a Cessna 172). But at least 60 other high wing airplanes ditched and none of
the pilots reported flipping over.
Is it possible that many of the high wing airplanes flipped and the pilots were just too
pumped up to notice in their hurry to exit the airplane? Sure, it's possible. After all,
the accident narratives are often too sketchy to draw definitive conclusions.
But again, even if every high wing airplane flipped over on impact or cartwheeled
end-over-end across the water--highly unlikely, by the way--the occupants still
managed to egress successfully. That doesn't argue for complacency in attempting the
smoothest, slowest speed water touchdown you can manage but it strongly suggests
that worrying about a flip-over is a misplaced concern.

Myth 7: The Airplane Won't Float Long Enough for

Everyone To Get Out
Yet another thing pilots worry about--but shouldn't. While you don't want to dally
around collecting your personal belongings, there's usually plenty of time to egress a
sinking airplane. In some cases, there's time enough to exit and reach back in to
retrieve survival gear or other items.
Again, the record doesn't show how long the typical airplane floats after a ditching.
Indeed, there appear to be too many variables to even hazard a guess at what "typical"
is, if there is such a thing. Some airplanes float for only a minute or two, others are
still adrift two days later. The important thing to remember is that crew and
passengers don't hang around to observe buoyancy potential, they evacuate and do so
with a great deal of success.
One fear that's largely unfounded is that of going down with the ship. True, as
mentioned above, there are instances of this in extreme conditions, but these are rare.
Overall, out of 179 ditchings, we found seven in which the occupants didn't escape
and three of these were high wave conditions in the open sea.
In one of the stranger accidents, the bodies of two people were found pinned in a
Piper Aztec that ditched off the Florida coast at night. Investigators were quite certain
that the bales of marijuana that shifted forward from the backseat had something to do
with the outcome.
In the another case, a CFI and his student ditched a Cessna 152 off Long Beach,
California after the engine quit. The student couldn't open her door or release her
seatbelt, but the CFI got her safely extricated out his door. They treaded water for 15
minutes before being picked up by a boat.

Myth 8: Ditching Successfully Requires a Great Deal

of Skill

Probably not. Pilots of all skill levels seem to put airplanes into the water and survive
the experience none the worse for wear.
Five of the ditching incidents we reviewed involved student pilots on solo flights who
presumably had no ditching training at all and very little flight experience. For that
matter, even seasoned pilots generally don't have so much as an orientation on
ditching. We doubt if many have even read section 6-3-3 in the AIM (Aeronautical
Information Manual) describing safe ditching procedures.

Myth 9: Unless I Have a Raft, Survival Suit and

Other Equipment, I'm Not Likely to Survive a
Ditching
Again, in reading the accident summaries, it's difficult or impossible to tell how well
the pilots and crews are equipped for overwater flight. In our estimation, however,
most pilots are poorly equipped. Some carry personal flotation devices (PFDs), far
fewer carry rafts and other survival gear. In reviewing the 179 accidents, we found
PFDs mentioned five times and rafts mentioned four times.
Still, as the overall record shows, pilots somehow muddle through anyway. This is
certainly due in part to the fact that the majority of ditchings--86 percent, to be exact-occur in what we call "coastal and inshore water," along an ocean beach, in a
sheltered bay not far from land or even a lake, a river, a pond or a canal. Many of
these ditching sites are within sight of land or boats and the egressing pilots and crew
are able to swim to shore or are quickly picked up by helpful yachtsman.
Is swimming for it really a good idea? We would be inclined to say no, but the record
suggests the opposite may sometimes be true. In 13 of the 179 ditchings, pilots and
crew successfully rescued themselves by swimming to shore or--in two cases--to oil
platforms. In five cases, occupants attempting to swim for it drowned or succumbed
to exposure, although other occupants from the same aircraft survived.
If there's any pattern to any of these ditchings, it emerges at this juncture: Eight of the
179 ditchings involved banner tow pilots who put it into the drink off a beach,
extricated themselves, and swam or waded ashore. Every one of these pilots survived,
leading us to the conclusion that even though the touchdown may be violent and
unpleasant, surviving it well enough to swim for it is highly likely. Whether to do so,
however, becomes a matter of judgement depending upon the circumstances. In these
cases, very close to shore, it seems to work.
Does this then support the argument that you really don't need survival gear? We think
not. At minimum, a personal flotation device for each occupant--plus an extra or two-is cheap insurance in any airplane, even those based in the landlocked desert.
Although you may not fly any "serious" overwater legs, you'll still have brief
exposure over rivers, bays, lakes, and along ocean shores. PFDs improve the already
good odds of survival.

Obviously, you don't need a survival suit to cross Long Island Sound, but
there's little question that a life raft of some sort greatly improves
survival odds. A raft does two important things: It gets the occupants out
of the water, thus reducing hypothermia risk, and it vastly improves the
probability of detection when Search and Rescue (SAR) comes looking.
Unfortunately, we can't tell you what the average time in the water is, the
NTSB records aren't clear on that point. Sometimes it's mere minutes,
other times hours or even overnight. One pilot drifted in his life vest for
25 hours near Hawaii after ditching a Grumman. Lucky for him, his
friends notified authorities, for he hadn't filed a flight plan nor was he talking to ATC
when his engine quit.
We found at least five accidents in which a raft or PFDs would have made the
difference between surviving and not surviving.
One example occurred on September 11, 1987, when a Cherokee on an IFR flight
plan ran out of gas and ditched into Long Island Sound. Both the pilot and passenger
escaped uninjured and after a time in the water, the pilot decided to swim for shore
while the passenger clung to an offshore structure. The pilot drowned and the
passenger was rescued three hours later. There's little question that a raft would have
favorably altered this outcome.
There's also a subtle wake up call here: Even for an airplane on an IFR flight plan,
SAR may be slow in coming. That doesn't appear to occur often, but it does happen.
This, again, argues for being prepared to provide for yourself, including equipment to
remain afloat and to signal SAR when it does arrive. When you're adrift in the water,
you are on your own and it's better to have too much survival gear than none at all.

One last comment on survival equipment: It's not sufficient to merely stow the stuff in
the airplane and forget about it until it's needed. A minimal safety briefing of some
sort--just as the airlines do--is a must. An example of why this is so important is
illustrated by a bizarre accident that occurred in November of 1990, when a Cessna
172 pilot became disoriented off the Florida coast and ran out of fuel. He found a
ship, circled it, and ditched nearby.
The Cessna was laudably equipped with both PFDs and a four-person life raft.
Unfortunately, one of the passengers inflated the raft inside the airplane, a calamity
worse than the ditching itself. The passenger punctured the raft before exiting the
airplane, thus rendering it useless. Furthermore, even though the flight was in distress,
the pilot didn't even brief the occupants on PFD use and they were unable to find and
don the vests. Two of the passengers survived, the pilot and another passenger died,
although it's unclear whether they drowned after egressing or went down with the
airplane.

Myth 10: I Fly a Twin; I Don't Need to Worry About

Ditching
Tell that to the pilots of 29 multi-engine airplanes that went into the water during the
eight year period we investigated. These represent 16 percent of all the ditchings. Of
course, we have no idea how many twin pilots shut one down over the water and
made it safely to shore without bothering to report the incident. Again, we know it
happens, but we have no idea how often it happens.
One crude way of measuring the multi-engine ditching risk is to examine the total
fleet numbers measured against reported accidents. According to the FAA, the GA
fleet was composed of about 169,200 powered airplanes, as of 1997. That includes
pistons, turboprops and jets, but not gliders, lighter than air or experimental aircraft.
The vast majority--85 percent--are single engine airplanes, the remaining 15 percent
are multi-engine airplanes. At a glance, it would appear that multi-engine airplanes
ditch at a rate equal to their representation in the overall aircraft population.
The flaw in this reasoning is that multi-engine pilots may--and probably do--fly over
water more readily than do their single-engine brethren, reasoning that the extra
engine gives them a safety edge. This means that their actual exposure to the
overwater risk is greater as a group than it is for single-engine pilots. This is pure
guesswork, of course, and your guess is as good as ours.
The important thing to know is that multi-engine airplanes aren't immune to the
ditching scenario. These pilots need to carry the same safety equipment that singleengine pilots should.
Also worth noting is why the twins wound up in the water: Of the 29 which ditched,
13 appeared to be bonafide mechanical problems in which engines quit for what
seemed to be failures of some kind. Again, the blue water crowd is at greater risk.
Eight of these incidents involved long range ferry flights, and in five of these
ditchings the pilot was unable to maintain altitude after shutting an engine down
because the airplane was legally overgross with excess fuel for ferry. In that sense, the
ferry pilot suffers a unique risk; until he's burned off most of his fuel, having a second
engine does him no good.
In general, a ditching induced by fuel exhaustion is the province of single-engine
pilots, but twin drivers are hardly immune. Five of the 29 multi-engine ditchings were
the result of fuel exhaustion compared to 45 fuel exhaustion or mismanagement
incidents among singles. (In nearly a third of all single-engine ditchings, fuel
exhaustion, mismanagement, or contamination is the suspected cause--a terrible
record.)

Myth 11: A Ditched Helicopter Sinks Like a Stone

If this is true, it doesn't seem to effect survival rates. During the eight-year period we
examined, there were 19 helicopter ditchings, some in challenging conditions in the

Gulf of Mexico. These produced only one fatality and in that case, the pilot drowned
while swimming to shore.
Two interesting observations relative to helos: They tend not to run out of gas, but to
break. Half of the helo splashes involved known mechanical failures, four involved
fuel contamination, but none involved fuel exhaustion. Second, even though helos
involved in overwater operations are frequently equipped with skid floats, in at least
three cases these floats failed to inflate as pilots fluttered toward the water in
autorotation. Nonetheless, pilots and crew survived the ditchings, which without
floats typically involve rollovers or pitchpoling as the rotor blades strike the water and
dissipate energy in unpredictable ways. It is worth noting that in many instances
involving the off-shore oil industry, both helo crew and passengers have received
dunker training, better preparing them for a roll-over upon impact with the water.

Conclusions
Because ditching accident details are wanting, drawing incontrovertible conclusions
from a review of accidents is tricky business. Still, one thing is certain: Landing an
airplane in the water under control is a highly survivable experience that appears to
take very little skill, experience, or preparation. Nine out of ten pilots who attempt it
succeed, even when ditching in the ocean close to shore.
Given this high rate of success, it makes sense to
carry at least basic floatation in every airplane, not
just those which venture over water or coastal areas.
If you ever find yourself afloat in a river or even a
pond--and many pilots have--a device as simple and
cheap as an inflatable life vest will greatly improve
your already good odds of surviving.
The need for a raft is less compelling for aircraft
operated in inland areas. However, we consider it must-have equipment for forays
over the Great Lakes, to the Islands of the Caribbean, and along coastal and inshore
areas. This is especially true in temperate or cold climates where pilots and crew
might exit a sinking airplane safely only to die of hypothermia awaiting rescue.
Obviously, over-ocean ferry flights need far more sophisticated equipment and anyone
contemplating such a flight should seek professional assistance.
Having Search and Rescue close at hand improves survival odds. The best way to do
this is to file and fly on an IFR flight plan. Nothing quite gets the attention of the SAR
apparatus faster than a radio'd mayday call followed by loss of radar contact. The next
best SAR insurance is radar traffic advisories while operating VFR. VFR flight plans
and notification by relatives or associates are also useful, but since your position
won't be known, the search may take a great deal more time.
How to avoid going into the water in the first place? Don't run out of gas and/or make
sure the gas you have isn't fouled with water or other debris. At least a third of all
ditchings are caused by fuel exhaustion, mismanagement, or contamination.
These are, quite simply, absolutely avoidable.

Mechanical failures are listed as the cause in nearly as many ditchings--about 25

percent--as is fuel exhaustion, but we're skeptical of making too much of this. Many
ditched aircraft aren't recovered, so investigators have to take the pilot's word for what
happened. It's not that we don't trust pilots, but absent an examination of the air filled
tanks, few are willing to admit running an airplane out of gas.
Second, if flying behind a carbureted engine, apply carb heat immediately when you
suspect icing. Time and time again, aircraft are fished out of the water with no
apparent mechanical faults, strongly suggesting that carb ice is the culprit.
Last, if you take no other wisdom away from this examination of ditchings, know this:
All things considered, when faced with landing on the water or impacting trees, rocks,
or other rough surfaces, the water is more likely to be survivable. Where this might
come into play is during an emergency landing where the choice may be between a
crowdedbeachor a rough wooded area and an expanse of open water. This should be
no contest; the water wins.
The pilot of a Mustang flying from Florida to Texas in January of 1990 faced this very
dilemma. Arriving in the Galveston area in deteriorating weather and with minimum
fuel, he attempted two instrument approaches but didn't break-out. Realizing he
lacked the fuel for another try, he elected to ditch the airplane in the Gulf of Mexico.
True, the NTSB spanked him for failing to plan the flight properly and he trashed a
perfectly good--and rare--warbird. But, in the end, he lived to fly another day and if
there's a bottom line on this topic, that's it. Ditching is eminently survivable.

If you fly long enough and often enough, sooner or later you'll face the prospect of
having to put an airplane on the deck in a hurry. If you're lucky, it'll be due to just a
sick passenger or maybe a rough engine. But it could just as well be a full-up-oil-onthe-windshield forced landing.
In the latter, you're confronted with the sudden and unavoidable question of where to
put the thing down. Is a road the best choice? An open plowed field? Settling into a
dense pine forest? A nice lake, near the shore?
Until recently, we thought we knew the answer: the water is by far the most
survivable surface upon which to alight in an emergency. We said as much at an FAA
accident prevention seminar we were asked to give by Bob Martens, the aviation
safety counselor at the nearby Bradley FSDO. We had just completed extensive
research on how aircraft fare during ditchings in water and concluded that the odds of
survival during a ditching were greater than 90 percent, thus water was a better choice
than trees for a power-out landing.
Not so fast, Martens said. As the occasional accident duty guy in heavily forested
New England, he had seen plenty of airplanes go into the trees and his gut feel was
that the majority of occupants walk away or at least survive.

Good point. We agreed to sweep through the accident database for another look. One
thing's for sure: there are plenty of forced landings to pick from, most of them the
depressing result of fuel exhaustion. It's not hard to find between 300 and 400 a year.

Crash or Forced Landing?

As with analyzing ditching accidents, you have to draw a distinction between a
ditching and a crash in the water and a forced landing and a crash on land. From the
NTSB's summaries, it's occasionally impossible to tell which is which. Some reading
between the lines is necessary.
For our purposes, a ditching and for that matter, a forced landing means that
there's strong evidence to suggest that the pilot attempted to touch down under control
and that the aircraft didn't impact out of control at high speed. But there are degrees of
control and lack thereof. The accident record shows that in many forced landings,
pilots set up an approach that's too fast, too high and to a poorly chosen surface. They
hit hard, bounce and roll over.
There's obviously some control being exercised, but no one would mistake the results
for a spot-landing contest. Some forced landings seem to begin auspiciously, evolve
into a hard landing then degrade into what the casual observer would certainly regard
as a crash.
Another difficulty in this analysis is the dead-men-tell-no-tales syndrome. When the
accident proves fatal for all occupants, there may not be anyone to offer an eyewitness
account of what actually happened. Ground witnesses, if there were any, are often
unqualified or unable to judge what they've seen. In some cases, this information can
be gleaned from radio transmissions and witnesses, but not always.
With these caveats in mind, the data we have available to review is obviously flawed
and thus we can draw only the broadest conclusions from analyzing it. In other words,
our findings can't be considered airtight by any means.
We reviewed some 179 ditching accidents over an eight-year period and 216 forced
landing incidents that occurred from 1995 to 1998. There's no magic to those years;
we picked them at random.

Going Swimming
As we reported in the October 1999 issue of Aviation Safety (prepublished here), the
survival rate in light aircraft ditching incidents is quite high, suggesting that when
there's a choice, a body of water is a safe place to get out of an airplane.
That said, there are far fewer ditchings than forced landings on terra firma. Our
review of accident stats reveals about 20 recorded ditchings in U.S. waters each year,
compared to between 300 and 500 genuine forced or precautionary landings on land.
Our review of the records found 179 ditchings over the period we examined. Of that
total, only 22, or 12 percent, involved fatalities.

But that figure needs clarification.

One of the distinctions between ditchings and forced landings is that the former may
be more likely to require survival equipment than the latter. If the equipment isn't
aboard, a successful ditching in which the occupants all exit the aircraft can turn into
fatalities if any or all die of exposure or drowning.
While it's true that a forced landing in a remote area can have the same consequences,
the accident record doesn't reveal many of those. In most forced landings, emergency
personnel are on the scene quickly, even in remote areas.
To understand ditching survival odds, knowing the egress rate is important. In other
words, how often do the occupants get out unscathed after a ditching? It turns out to
be about 92 percent. That means that more than nine out of 10 people get out of
ditched aircraft without significant problems.
Pilots worry about such things as sinking to the bottom before the doors can be
opened or flipping over and becoming too disoriented to get out. Yet these things don't
seem to happen much.
Ditching survivors often can't recall if the airplane flipped on impact but even it does,
the high egress rate speaks for itself. Whether upright or inverted, pilots and
passengers somehow manage to get out of their airplanes.
Where you ditch matters, too. Survival rates for ocean areas are lower than for lakes
and rivers. In blue water ocean, for example, the survival rate is 82 percent, versus 93
percent for rivers.

How About Land?

So much for the water. How do pilots fare when the only choice is rough terrain, trees
or other airplane inhospitable surfaces? In a nutshell, about the same or a bit better,
although the prospect of injury is somewhat higher. First, some comments on the data
and the basis of comparison.
Working through the NTSB database, the only forced landings likely to be reported
are those that result in accidents, and we're quite certain that not all of them make it
into the database, either. We're confident that most do but know enough of how this
system works to have few illusions about either its completeness or accuracy. That
said, comparing known reported forced landings on water against those that occur on
land is still an apples-to-apples comparison.
We can't comment on accident rates, of course, but we can compare the aftermath. We
examined 216 dry-land forced landing accidents that occurred in 1995, 1997 and
1998. These were picked at random from the NTSB files. The results of this search
proved interesting.
First, the percentage of these accidents that resulted in fatalities was an encouragingly
low 3 percent, meaning the survival rate for forced landings in all kinds of terrain

where an accident occurs is 97 percent overall, or a bit better than it is for landings in
water.
Further, even in cases where there were fatalities, in many cases, some occupants in
these aircraft survived the forced landing gone bad.
When you consider injuries sustained by pilots and passengers during forced landings,
the picture isn't quite so rosy. In 16 percent of the 216 accidents studied, pilots and/or
pax suffered serious injuries. In 20 percent of the cases, minor injuries were reported.
In water landings, only 10 percent received serious injuries but 33 percent reported
minor injuries. The typical minor injury in a ditching accident is a bumped head
from impact or abrasions during a hurried exit.
The picture is grimmer if you consider the type of surface or terrain in which the
forced landing is attempted. When trees are the touchdown area, serious injuries occur
about 35 percent of the time while injuries of some kind happen about 60 percent of
the time.
If this record is at all accurate, mushing one into the trees means your chances of
suffering an injury of some kind are about even. In other words, the odds of the tree
landing hurting a little are greater than if you had gone into the water.
However, the good news is that your chances of coming out of the controlled crash
alive are quite good. In fact, they're the same as surviving a ditching. Only 6 percent
of the tree landings we reviewed resulted in fatalities.
Logically, pilots and pax should expect to do better when the airplane is landed in
open fields or in fields obstructed with minor obstacles. And that appears to indeed be
the case. When an open field is the landing area, the serious injury rate drops to 14
percent, while the overall injury rate is about 35 percent. Those are better odds than
going into the trees. Out of 65 accidents in which the airplane was landed in what was
described as an open field, we could find only one fatality.
Again, worth noting is that what the NTSB describes as an attempted forced landing
may in fact have been an out-of-control crash. Sometimes, there's simply not enough
information in the reports to split these kinds of hairs.
Roads are another popular forced landing site. When an accident occurs, pilots and
pax fare a little worse on roads than in open fields, with serious injuries occurring 40
percent of the time and minor injuries about 22 percent of the time. We found no
fatalities in some 27 attempted forced landings on roads.

Conclusions
Clearly, our FAA friend was correct. The fatal accident rate for tree landings is
essentially the same as for water. The analysis suggests that either kind of landing, if
done correctly and under control, puts your chances of surviving at nine out of 10. But
that doesn't mean you'll necessarily walk or swim away.

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. This seems logical and the data we
assembled however flawed seems to bear out the theory.
So when there's no open field available and the choice is either trees or water, the
choice isn't the lead pipe cinch we once thought it was. 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.
One thing is relatively certain: Whichever you pick, the airplane will probably be a
write off, so trying to save or minimize damage shouldn't figure into your decision. In
fact, whenever you're confronted with any emergency in which survival is at question,
the airplane should be considered nothing but an expendable collection of aluminum,
steel, rubber and fluids.
That's the way the insurance company will look at it, and that's why you pay them that
hefty annual premium.

Speed Kills (At Least It Hurts)

One question we can't answer is how many forced
landings happen with no damage to the airplane and
no injuries. We would guess quite a few but there's
no reliable data on this.
But we can say why many of them go bad: speed,
usually. Too much of it. You can't blame a pilot
under duress for getting a little over-amped and
flying an approach that's too fast. On the other hand,
we are talking survival here and an accurate
touchdown at the slowest possible speed may be the
difference between life and death or walking away
or being carried away from the wreckage.
Interestingly, among the 216 accidents we
examined, only two involved stalls or mushes but
many dozens, in fact involved too-fast
touchdowns in which the aircraft bounced and
slithered its way across a too-short landing area
only to pile up in the rocks and trees at one end.
In fully 44 percent of the open-field landings, the aircraft nosed over and came to rest
inverted. A fair number of these occurred in snowy fields or soft, plowed surfaces
which tend to snag the gear.
Nonetheless, it's also true that if the touchdown is slow enough, they're less likely to
happen or, if they do happen, the speeds will be slow enough to cause less injury.

Speaking of speed, the less you have of it, the better. This is especially true of tree
landings where control is minimal or non-existent once the branches start slapping the
wings and fuselage.
The accompanying graphic shows how touchdown groundspeed affects the
dissipation of crash energy (click on graphic for larger image). Note that energy
increases in proportion to the square of the speed, it is not a straightline relationship.
The slower you can go and still maintain control, the less it'll hurt when you sink into
the trees.
The best way to become proficient at accurate, slow touchdowns is to practice
emergency landings regularly with an emphasis on flying them as slowly as possible
and definitely more slowly than you fly your standard approach.
Furthermore, you probably fly your standard approach too fast, too.
Every normal landing is an opportunity to learn the art of the slow, precise power-off
approaches that are a must for survivable forced landings in less-than-ideal areas.
Then, of course, there's the issue of avoiding what caused the forced landing in the
first place. Sad to say, most are the result of fuel exhaustion, not mechanical failures.
More than a handful are caused by carb icing which, of course, melts when the
airplane lands, removing all the evidence. (I swear it the engine quit I swear it
did!)
On the issue of fuel exhaustion, we have written numerous articles on this subject and
tried to jolly the pilot community along with human factors psychobabble and warm
entreaties that aircraft fuel gauges really are defective. Enough of that. Absent a leak
or other mechanical fault, if you run an airplane out of gas, you are an idiot and you
deserve what befalls you. With any luck, both you and your passengers will survive.
Slower is better, especially when it comes to forced landings. As the top graph shows,
reducing from best glide speed to minimum sink speed substantially cuts the amount
of energy the airplane brings to the ground. The bottom graph shows that sink rate is
more at best glide speed than at minimum sink speed. For most airplanes, minimum
sink speed is just about the glide speed with full nose-up trim, further reducing
workload at a crucial time.

FORCED LANDING CHECKLIST

To avoid landing downwind, especially in IMC, compare the GPS

groundspeed to true airspeed. (You did calculate that, right?)
Compare GPS heading with compass/DG to find crosswind direction
and strength.
The closest airport may be behind you.
Find an airport, field or deserted road if possible.
Seat belts as tight as you can stand.
Stow loose objects.
Once landing area is made, slow to minimum sink speed. It's close to

maximum endurance speed and roughly 1.2 times clean stall speed.
Give accurate position report to ATC, including GPS coordinates if
you can.
Flaps to full.
Landing gear is a toss-up. Make your best call.
Try to relax.
Electrics, fuel off and doors cracked open before impact.

Cushion face with pillow or folded jacket or blanket.

Ditching is a precautionary or forced landing of a landplane in water. The mere

mention of this sort of an emergency procedure usually triggers thoughts of small
airplanes crossing large oceans or of pilots who intentionally fly beyond gliding
distance of land while crossing channels, lakes, or bays.
Certainly these pilots need to be familiar with ditching procedures, but they are not
the only ones. Thirty to 40 general aviation ditchings occur in U.S. coastal or inland
waters each year. Many of these are performed by pilots who usually do not venture
over water. Sometimes it is unavoidable, such as when operating IFR between coastal
airports. Arrival and departure routes for these areas frequently require pilots to fly
beyond gliding distance of land for uncomfortably long periods of time.
There also are occasions when pilots opt to land in the water because this appears
safer than landing on a crowded or rocky beach. Consider, for example, the dilemma
faced by Takis Hinofotis, a flight instructor based in Santa Monica, California. While
flying along the coast of Malibu one September, the engine of his Piper Turbo Arrow
IV failed catastrophically because of a shattered connecting rod. The beach was
crowded with sun worshipers, Highway 101 was choked with traffic, and the rugged,
coastal palisades were even less inviting. With time and altitude in short supply,
Hinofotis opted to ditch in the Pacific.
The procedure was performed well enough, for both the instructor and his student
survived without a scratch. After they swam to shore, the aircraft drifted toward the
beach and was tugged onto the sand by helpful onlookers, including actor Larry
Hagman.
Consider also the pilot of a Cessna Skylane who was crossing the Rocky Mountains
on a VFR flight between Spokane, Washington, and Cut Bank, Montana. Certainly, he
had no reason to be concerned with ditching. Yet that is exactly what he did shortly
after his engine failed. Instead of trying to find a soft spot in the granite, he landed in
a mountain lake and survived unscathed. (Since he had broadcast his predicament and
location prior to losing much altitude, the pilot and his family ultimately were rescued
by helicopter.)
Although total power failure (usually caused by fuel exhaustion) is the most common
reason for pilots having to ditch, there are a host of other reasons why a water landing
may be necessary. Oddly, the need to ditch often is not recognized or accepted soon
enough, and this can be the most hazardous factor in the overall operation. Assuming

a splashdown is unavoidable, take advantage of all available time and altitude to

prepare for what could be the most dangerous landing you ever will make.
As in any emergency, the pilot first must control the
airplane. If the need to ditch is caused by an engine
failure, pilots tend to establish a normal glide. But
unless attempting to reach land, there usually is no
reason to maximize glide range. After all, the water
ahead usually is no different than the water below.
Instead, fly the aircraft at the minimum-sink speed
(about halfway between stall and normal glide
speed). Although this reduces glide range, it also
reduces sink rate and increases substantially the
time required to lose altitude and the time available to prepare for the landing itself.
When 1,000 feet above the water, normal glide speed should be resumed because
maneuvering may be required.
One exception to this is when a maximum-range glide is needed to reach a distant
surface vessel, which is the best assurance of assistance if a landing cannot be made
close to shore. An attempt should be made to ditch ahead of the ship to increase the
probability that someone on board will see you. Also, land to one side of the vessel,
not directly in front of ita large ship may not be sufficiently maneuverable to avoid
collision.
While still at altitude, attempt communicating with any ground facility or even
another aircraft. It is imperative to alert someone who can initiate an immediate
rescue operation. Additionally, activate the emergency locator transmitter (ELT), if
possible, and transmit the emergency code (7700) on the transponder, even if you
believe the aircraft is too far from land to be detected. In certain areas, long-range
radar extends 1,000 miles seaward.
During extended overwater operations, a pilot may recognize the eventual need to
ditch even though he still can remain airborne for some lengthy period of time (such
as when he knows insufficient fuel is available to make landfall). At such a time he
might be able to communicate (via relay) with a Coast Guard or Air Force Rescue
Coordination Center. A rescue center usually can provide nearby ship positions and
recommend ditch headings based on forecast wind and sea conditions. With enough
warning, a rescue center even can launch an escort aircraft to provide navigational
assistance (if a pilot is lost), illuminate a ditch area at night, drop survival equipment,
and provide a plethora of advice and moral support.
While time still is available (during a glide, for example), be certain to review with
passengers the use of emergency exits and insist that evacuation not begin until the
aircraft comes to rest. Although life jackets should be put on as soon as possible, they
should not be inflated until outside the aircraft. This is because an inflated life jacket
hampers an escape from tight quarters and is prone to puncture by a sharp piece or
corner of the aircraft structure. In reality, your best bet is to wear a life jacket at all
times when flying over water because it can be difficult to don when inside the cabin
(especially for the pilot). Life jackets are not normally designed to be worn regularly,
but special ones designed for this purpose are available.

Anyone who has seen a late-night rerun of The

High and the Mighty probably knows the rest of the
drill. Loose objects that could become missiles
during a crash landing should be stowed or thrown
overboard. Collars, neckties, dentures, and
eyeglasses should be removed, lap belts and
shoulder harnesses should be cinched tightly, and
cushioning (such as jackets or pillows) should be
placed so as to provide maximum protection during
the landing. With respect to shoes, these should be removed if it is necessary to swim
without benefit of a life jacket. However, when wearing a life jacket, they probably
should be worn to provide some degree of insulation and protection (from small sea
creatures with big mouths and sharp teeth).
When approximately one minute from touchdown, each rear-seat passenger should be
instructed to assume the crash position: cross forearms, grab and hold onto the top of
the seat immediately in front, and rest forehead on arms. (A front-seat passenger can
do the same using the top of the glare shield.) Finally, the pilot should remove his
headset to prevent becoming entangled in wire during evacuation.
One final preparatory item is the subject of some controversy. Many argue that the
cabin door should be kept closed during ditching to keep the cabin as watertight as
possible. The Coast Guard points out, however, that structural distortion of the
fuselage and doorframe might occur during a water landing and jam the door
permanently. Unless other exits are available, the occupants could become entombed.
Others argue, therefore, that the door should be opened when on final approach and
kept ajar by jamming a shoe or other article between the door and its frame. This, of
course, will sacrifice some buoyancy.
Another subject of controversy is the relative seaworthiness of high-wing versus lowwing airplanes and fixed gear versus retractable gear. Most pilots contend that the
ideal airplane for ditching is a low-wing aircraft with landing gear retracted. Statistics,
however, do not substantiate this. Aircraft geometry and landing gear configuration do
not appear to affect survivability appreciably.
Although low-wing aircraft do offer superior planing and buoyancy (especially with
empty fuel tanks), they should not be landed in water with flaps fully extended
because this can cause pronounced nose-down pitching and make the aircraft behave
like a submarine. Also, flaps hanging from a tow wing may be torn away during
touchdown, which might create gaping holes in the wings and have a disastrous effect
on buoyancy. Consequently, low-wing airplanes typically land faster, increasing the
probability of damage and injury.
Since the flaps of high-wing aircraft are less susceptible to water damage, they should
be used to the maximum extent possible to reduce impact speed.
Another significant disadvantage of a low-wing configuration is that it is easier to dig
a wingtip into a rolling sea during initial touchdown. This can result in a lethal
cartwheel. Also, the ailerons on high-wing airplanes are most effective in maintaining

lateral control because they are kept "high and dry" throughout most of the landing
rollout.
The Coast Guard does recommend that a ditching be made with the landing gear
retracted, but this should not be construed to mean that retractable-gear aircraft are
more suitable for ditching than fixed-gear aircraft. Just the opposite may be true. Of
the 104 ditchings made in U.S. waters during a recent three-year period, half were
made in retractable-gear aircraft, yet these accounted for two-thirds of the fatalities
that occurred during splashdown. This apparent paradox, however, does not suggest
extending the gear for a ditching. What the statistics probably indicate is that, since
retractables generally have higher stall speeds than fixed-gear aircraft, they usually
are landed somewhat faster and subjected to greater deceleration forces.
Landing with the gear down can result in violent,
destructive impact forces. The wheels should be
kept in their wells, particularly when ditching highperformance aircraft. When touching down with a
smooth belly, however, the aircraft tends to skip just
the way a flat, spinning rock can when tossed
toward a deep puddle at an acute angle. This initial
touchdown generally is quite mild. But hang on; the
second impact is likely to be much more severe,
especially as the elevator loses effectiveness (because of airspeed decay) and the nose
begins to dig in. Depending on many factors, this may even cause the aircraft to
submerge. But, do not fret; it should bob to the surface quickly and provide sufficient
time for evacuation before sinking.
Those who have ditched slow, fixed-gear aircraft, however, report that the main gear
digging in during initial impact prevents the aircraft from skipping and subsequently
striking the water in a stalled, nose-low attitude. The aircraft simply decelerates
rapidly with the nose burrowing only slightly. Fixed-gear proponents claim this is
safer than risking the secondary, nose-low impact frequently associated with
retractables.
Considering all of the arguments, experts have yet to decide the optimum aircraft for
ditching except perhaps that it should have STOL characteristics, be built of wood,
and be stuffed with Ping-Pong balls.
When ditching in a lake, a pilot obviously should plan to land into the wind. Should a
river be his goal, the landing should be made downstream (to reduce impact speed)
unless a strong wind dictates otherwise. But when landing in the ocean, much more
thought must be given to the safest landing direction.
The surface of an ocean almost always is characterized by long, parallel swells. These
large undulations are caused by distant storms and are not wave irregularities caused
by local winds. It is important that a landing be made parallel to these swells because
landing into the face of one can be like flying into the side of a mountain. Although
water often is regarded as a soft substance, it can be as hard as granite when struck
head on at landing speeds (as anyone who has done a belly flop from a lofty diving
board can attest).

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to detect swell movement when below' 2,000 feet
msl. The state of the sea must be assessed from a higher altitude and even this is not
particularly easy unless the swells are pronounced. Learning to recognize swell
direction, however, is one aspect of ditching that can be practiced during routine
flights along a shoreline.
The Coast Guard often refers to secondary swells
that also may influence the direction of landing; but
since these usually are visible only to the trained
eye, any further discussion of them is only of
academic interest, except for one point.
Occasionally, major and minor swell systems
interact (even in rough seas) to form areas of
relatively smooth water. This occurs where the
peaks of one swell system fill the valleys of another.
So, if time and altitude permit, execute a shallow', 360-degree turn to see if such an
oceanic oasis can be found.
Although it is tempting to disregard swell movement and land directly into the wind,
this must be avoided. Landing into the face of a well-developed swell can be
catastrophic unless the wind component across the swells exceeds one-third of the
touchdown speed. In this ease, the pilot probably should compromise between landing
parallel to the swells and into the wind. If the crosswind component exceeds half the
landing speed, it might be wiser to land into the wind as long as the touchdown can be
made in a valley between swells or on the backside of a swell. To this must be added,
"Good luck."
The Coast Guard recommends that high-wing aircraft be landed with full flaps and
that low-wing aircraft be landed either with the flaps retracted or extended only
slightly. Although the initial touchdown should be at as low an airspeed as possible, a
full-stall landing is dangerous because of the possibility of striking the water nosefirst. Instead, fixed-gear aircraft should touch down in a 10-to-12-degree, nose-high
attitude; retractables should use a 5- to 8-degree attitude. These target attitudes are
considered critical because if the aircraft lands with the nose too high, the tail may
strike first and force the nose down too rapidly; if aircraft attitude is too flat, the nose
may dig in prematurely.
After initial contact with the water, apply maximum up-elevator (assuming it is still
attached) to keep the nose out of the water and work feverishly to keep the wings
parallel to the surface; do not lower a wing to compensate for a crosswind. Otherwise
a wingtip may dig in and cause total loss of control.
The aircraft most likely will come to rest in a nose-down attitude because an
airplane's center of gravity usually is ahead of its center of buoyancy. Immediate
evacuation is imperative even if the aircraft appears to be floating well. The typical
general aviation aircraft will flood and submerge in about one minute, but don't let
that worry you needlessly. Many aircraft float so long that they become a hazardous to
surface vessels and have to be sunk. Also, whether an aircraft sinks or floats does not
appear to effect the excellent survival rate.

If the door cannot be opened because of water pressure from outside the cabin, open a
window and wait for water entering the cabin to equalize the pressure. The door
should then open quite easily. If it still cannot be opened because of structural
jamming, someone should crawl into the back of the cabin (where a pocket of air
usually can be found). He should place his back against one side of the cabin, extend
his legs and push out a window on the other side with his feet.
Although less than 15% of all ditchings involve
fatalities, the U.S. Coast Guard points out that most
of those who perish usually survive the procedure
itself. Many of the fatalities occur after evacuation
and are due to drowning because flotation
equipment is unavailable. On occasion, life jackets
are on board but out of reach, are damaged during
evacuation, or fail to inflate.
Another major threatespecially in winteris hypothermia, a disabling condition in
which the temperature of the human body drops below normal (98.6 degrees F).
Hypothermia occurs most rapidly when the body is immersed in cold water because
water carries off body heat much more rapidly than does air.
When body temperature drops to 96 degrees F, shivering becomes uncontrollable;
below 90 degrees F, shivering gives way to muscular rigidity and impaired mental
acuity. With a body temperature of less than 80 degrees F, the average person loses
consciousness and eventually experiences heart failure.
Although the ability to endure hypothermia varies among individuals and
circumstances, the U.S. Navy claims that no one can survive in 32 degrees F water for
more than one hour. As water temperature increases, however, the likelihood of
survival increases dramatically. But hypothermia can occur eventually even when the
water is relatively warm.
If possible, either swim to shore or have an inflatable raft readily available. In water
temperatures of less than 35 degrees, pilots have reported such a rapid onset of
hypothermia that they did not have the strength to swim to a nearby raft. Ditching is a
complex subject that has had experts debating for years. A pilot, however, has only
one shot at perfection, with lives hanging in the balance. Preparedness is the key to
his survival.

Surviving a Splashdown
It is a rare pilot who has flown over water and hasn't looked down and contemplated
the shimmering surface, wondering what they'd do if something serious went wrong.
Even when that water is just on the approach or departure to an airport, the pucker
factor is raised just a bit. Drowning isn't a pleasant prospect, yet many pilots face the
risk regularly by failing to prepare for the eventuality of a forced water landing.
While we generally consider ditchings in relation to long over-water flights, they
often occur during approach and takeoff or within sight of land. Many aircraft are

ditched into rivers, lakes and bays. We've all heard the old saw that "you can drown in
a thimbleful of water." It is just as true that you can drown during a ditching within
sight of shore.
Anyone who flies over water, any water, outside of practical gliding distance to land,
is at risk. By practical, we mean that there is a safe spot to put down on dry land.
Many shorelines don't offer any suitable landing spots. Often, the water is the safest
spot available, if you're prepared.

Three Phases
We can divide a ditching into three distinct phases. The initial or ditching phase
includes recognition of the emergency, preparation for, and the actual ditching. The
egress phase starts after the aircraft comes to a stop and encompasses getting out and
away from the aircraft before it is too late. The survival phase begins once you are
safely out of the aircraft and continues until rescue. Each encompasses unique areas of
concern, difficulties and solutions.
When the possibility of a ditching exits, early recognition of the emergency and
prompt contact with ATC are vital. The record shows that late recognition or
admittance of the emergency has traditionally been a problem. Don't lose valuable
time; accept the reality. Communication can be difficult and spotty, particularly over
the ocean, and any altitude loss can cut off comm to ATC. If fuel is potentially a
problem, the sooner noted, the sooner you can be directed to a preferred ditching site,
such as a boat or offshore platform. (These are among the good reasons to fly as high
as is practical while over water.)
The sooner ATC is notified, the quicker search and rescue (SAR) forces can be on
their way to you and the more likely you will be rescued. It is also more likely they
can help you with additional information which could come in handy, such as relaying
wind and sea conditions from a nearby boat. If you can't raise ATC, transmit in the
blind. Many a pilot's mayday call has been received by other aircraft who have alerted
ATC.
The most vital information to transmit is your location. Know how to get your present
position on your GPS, Loran or RNAV if you have one. If not, give the best fix you
can. No matter how you do it, you should always be aware of your position while over
water. In an emergency there may not be time to try to figure it out. If time allows,
also transmit your altitude, rate of descent, course and speed.

Preparations
If you have filed and opened your flight plan and stuck to it or updated it enroute if
necessary, this information should be all SAR needs to find you because everything
else is in the flight plan. The Coast Guard (USCG) considers a complete and accurate
flight plan for over water flights essential. It one of the best things you can do to help
yourself and them. Never make an over water flight without one.

When filing, use the "Remarks" field to provide additional information that will make
it easier for SAR to find you. Include the survival equipment you carry, such as vests,
a raft, strobe lights, etc. and be as specific as possible about what sort of raft you
have. How a raft is equipped can make a big difference in how fast it drifts in
response to wind and currents. This type of information helps SAR establish their
search parameters and decide for how long to continue the search and whether to
search into the night.
Unless you are trying to reach a ship, off-shore platform, the shore or a particularly
calm expanse of water, there is little reason to try to get to any specific location. The
water is pretty much the same anywhere you go--wet. On the other hand, the more
time you have to prepare for the actual ditching, the better. So, you generally want to
maximize your time aloft, not the distance traveled. Minimum sink rate will gain you
some extra time to prepare and keep you dry just a bit longer. This is usually achieved
close to half way between the stall speed and normal glide speed in most light aircraft.
A little experimentation beforehand can determine this number more precisely. Once
you have prepared as best you can and are within approximately 1000 ft. of the
surface, then you should resume a normal glide which will set you up at a familiar
rate of descent for your landing.
Once you have a advised ATC of your emergency and established your glide, it's time
to deal with survival equipment and preparations for the ditching. A ditching is not a
normal emergency situation and a special ditching checklist made up ahead of time
can help make sure you don't forget anything. You'll have to make your own, because
very few aircraft include a ditching checklist in the POH, and the few that do exist are
not very good.

Carry Life Vests

Life vests (or Personal Floatation Devices (PFD) as they are also referred to) are a
must, even with a raft aboard. There's no guarantee you'll get a raft out of a sinking
airplane and no matter how physically fit you are, you can't expect to survive by
treading water, especially if you're injured or in cold water.
We recommend you always wear your life vest while over water. Ideally, this is a
vest designed for regular wear or a quick donning style which straps to your waist.
Standard airline style vests are not designed to be worn except in an emergency. For
the pilot and the front seat passenger or co-pilot this is especially important. This is
not the time to be struggling to get into a life vest. It is time to fly the aircraft.
Depending upon the size of the cabin, passengers may be able to make do with a
conventional packaged vest as used by the airlines. However, before electing to go
that route, give it very careful consideration. Quickly donning a life vest in the tight
confines of the typical light plane is, at best, an awkward endeavor. Add in a dose of
panic as the water gets closer and you might want to seriously consider a quick
donning or wearable style for all occupants. If the ditching preparations are begun at
low altitude, there is simply no way anyone will get into a conventional airline style
vest in time.

Always brief your passengers on the location and use of the vests before take off.
Before actually ditching, cinch the waist strap down tight--uncomfortably tight. If the
vest isn't cinched down tight, then it is going to ride up away from your body. With
most vests this will funnel water down into your mouth and nose rather than allowing
it to drain away.

Final Preparations
If it is necessary to undo the seat belt to don a vest, don't forget to put the belt and
harness back on before ditching. Pilots should double-check this. Lives have been lost
because passengers forgot to buckle back up.
It is virtually impossible to don a vest, even a quick donning style, with a headset on.
If still at altitude and plenty of time is available, you can put the headset back on until
preparing to ditch. At that time transmit a final position fix and "off comm," then take
it off and stow it where it won't come loose or be in the way when evacuating the
aircraft. Headsets and cords can entangle and trap occupants. Remember when you
are stowing it that besides the deceleration forces, there may also be water in the
cabin, both influence where you stow the headset.
It is difficult to don any vest without removing your glasses and you want them off for
the evacuation anyway. Place them in a secure place on your person. Note that they
will be difficult to get at later on if you put them in a shirt pocket, though in many
cases there may not be any other option.
Traditionally, we have been instructed to remove shoes. That is appropriate in an
airliner, but not in light aircraft. Only remove your shoes if they have high heels or
something similar which could cause you problems getting out, or if, for some reason,
you have no life vest. Once in the water, shoes offer additional protection.
Take off ties, remove dentures, secure any loose objects. In some aircraft it may be
feasible to toss excess or loose baggage overboard. Tuck any loose ends of the vest
waist strap into a pant pocket or otherwise secure them. These long loose ends can
easily become entangled during an evacuation, trapping you.
Never inflate the vest until completely clear of the aircraft. Be sure to brief your
passengers on this point and make sure they understand. A vest inflated inside can
make it difficult or impossible to get out and might trap others as well.
If you carry a life raft, and we think that it is foolish not to do so for over water
flights, it needs to be as accessible as possible. The raft must be secured, yet be easy
to get at. Storing it in a passenger seat secured with the safety harness is the best
option, if there is an empty one available. Many ferry pilots, who fly solo, store the
raft in the left seat and fly from the right in aircraft with a single door.
If stored in the baggage area, it should be on top and have a quick release tie down.
Be sure to brief everyone on its location, how to release and operate it and, most
importantly, how to avoid inflating it inside the cabin. Inflating a raft in the cabin is
a quick way to turn a bad situation into a disaster.

Worth noting here that a personal size ELT or EPIRB is one of the surest ways to be
found quickly. Your handheld VHF radio, or even your cell phone, could come in real
handy if you've prepared ahead of time. Make sure you pack it inside a waterproof
pouch or case. Civilian aviation handhelds are not waterproof. Companies such as
West Marine and Aquapac have specially designed cases that you'll want to get; they
aren't expensive and they could be lifesavers. They also make such cases for cell
phones, GPSes, and other useful gear.
WARNING: (added 5/14/2002) It appears many pilots have been confused by
some of the advertising for the Yaesu (Vertex Standard) handheld VHF radios with
water drops on and around the radio in the photos and claims of "JIS-4 water
resistance." They have apparently mistakenly believed that the standard Yaesu
handhelds are actually waterproof (or more technically "immersion resistant" or
"submersible") and that is not true. They are only splash resistant (JIS-4: "Splashproof" "...no harmful influence by receiving splash of water from any direction" click for complete standard) so that if it should get rained or splashed on, they will
likely continue to function, but submerge them and you're likely going to be left with
a useless piece of electronics. Icom also claim JIS-4 compliance, but their image
advertising hasn't implied more than they can deliver.
UPDATE: (added 11/22/2003) The first truly submersible aviation handheld
that is as waterproof as the typical marine handheld was introduced by Vertex
Standard in 2003, the VXA 700 "Spirit." This compact radio incorporates not only the
VHF aviation comm and navigation frequencies, but also 2 meter amateur band
(HAM) and weather and FM receive only as well. It is waterproof to the JIS 7
standard; 1 meter for 30 minutes.
In the event the raft should inflate inside, for whatever reason, it must be deflated
immediately, if not sooner. Always carry a knife with which to puncture the raft, if
this should happen. The knife should either be a fixed blade or a one-hand opening
folder which is readily accessible. A fixed blade is best. It does not have to be large to
get the job done, but should have a handle big enough to grasp firmly. Something in
your pocket is not accessible enough, if you have to disconnect the seat belt to get at
it. If you need it, you will need it "right now!"
In most aircraft, open the door(s) and jamb something into the opening so as to
prevent the door closing again on impact. NOTE: IF YOU FLY COLUMBIA
AIRCRAFT, DO NOT OPEN THE DOOR IN FLIGHT! (Other aircraft with gull
wing doors may also be at risk. Always check your Pilot's Operating handbook to
ensure that opening the door is safe to do.) On some aircraft, moving the door handle
to the lock position while open will also serve to prevent the door from closing
(something to check out before you need it). This is critical to ensure you will be able
to exit through the normal exits. If left closed, deformation of the structure on impact
could make it impossible to open the door. If equipped with jettesonable doors, get rid
of them.
While passengers can practice the crash position ahead of time, have them wait to
assume the position until no sooner than one minute before hitting the water. If this

position is assumed too early, it is likely one or more will look up to take a peek-usually just as impact occurs.

A Pair Of Life Savers

Two additional pieces of equipment, ready at hand, could save your life, as they have
others. After ditching it would not be unusual to find yourself trapped in your safety
harness or entangled in wires in the cockpit. If you have a "seat belt safety knife"
available, you can safely cut yourself free. A regular knife could work, but you risk
the possibility of puncturing your life vest or injuring yourself or others, particularly
in the confusion and disorientation that is likely in a ditching. Velcro the knife to the
vest or to the shoulder harness or seat belt itself. After the impact you may not be able
to get it out of your pocket.
High wing aircraft and helicopters are nearly always going to submerge before you
can egress the aircraft. The helicopter is also going to roll upside down. Even a low
wing aircraft might quickly submerge, before all the occupants can get out. If the
water is cold and the submergence rapid, the problem is compounded by the body's
"cold water reflex" which will cause exhalation of air, no matter how hard you try to
hold it.
A device originally developed for the military to reduce the very high fatality rate in
helicopter ditchings is now available commercially. Called a HEED (Helicopter
Emergency Egress Device) in the military, the commercial variant is called "Spare
Air" ($210 - $275 depending on model from Submersible Systems, Inc.).
The device is essentially a miniature SCUBA which integrates all the components of
SCUBA gear (compressed air tank and regulator(s)) into a single small device that
will fit into a large vest pocket or holder. Depending upon the design selected, it will
give the user up to 48 breaths of air. This can make all the difference in an underwater
egress event. Safe use of the device requires training. While specialized aviation
oriented training is available, most dive shops will be able to give you the basic
training you need.

Sizing Up the Swells

There are a few significant differences between a forced landing on land and ditching
in the water, besides the fact that you're going to get wet. The first is selection of
landing direction. On land your primary concern is as flat an area as possible and into
the wind if you can manage it. For a ditching, everything depends upon the state of
the water.
If ditching in a river, your best bet is to ditch heading downstream. The water moving
in the same direction lowers the effective landing speed. If your ditching is to be into
a small to medium sized lake in calm to moderate winds, you'll do fine to simply head
into the wind. Wind direction can be ascertained by observing the movement of the
little whitecaps (chop) or the small waves generated by the wind. On larger lakes or in
high winds you may face essentially the same conditions as you will likely find on the
ocean. This gets a bit more complicated.

Ditching instructions invariably discuss landing in relation to the swell direction

because this has such an impact, figuratively and, potentially, literally, on the success
of the ditching. Swells are long parallel, rounded undulations of the water's surface
caused by distant wind systems. The are regular, and widely spaced. These are not
chop or waves which may exist on top of the swells and are characterized by short
distance between crests, whitecaps and breakers.
To make the safest landing, you need to determine the direction in which the swells
are traveling. Unfortunately, this can be difficult. Barry Shiff was the first aviation
writer to point out that swell movement is often nearly impossible to determine below
2000 ft. (AOPA Pilot, March 1983). However, this important point continues to be
ignored. Big mistake, and yet another reason to fly as high as possible.
Even at altitude, swell direction can be hard to figure out. It becomes easier with
practice and experience. Swell movement is recognizable as differences in light
intensity moving along on the surface. You should try to always be cognizant of swell
direction anytime you are over water and the more you look for it, the easier it will be
to recognize--so, practice.
In an emergency, if you haven't already determined the swell direction and if you have
enough altitude, making a 360-degree turn will often allow you to pick it out easier as
your vantage point vis-a-vis the sun reflecting off the water is changed. This is
generally a good idea anyway since you may also locate an even better place to ditch.

Secondary Swells
Besides the primary swell, there may also be smaller secondary swells. These will
move through the primary swell, usually at an angle to it, but not always. The problem
is that they are generally even more difficult to see than the primary swell. They could
influence your landing direction--if you could see them, but the chances of you doing
so are slim.
However, secondary swells can also help create an area of calm water when there is a
confluence of swell systems in just the right configuration, one's crests filling the
valleys of the other. This is something to keep an eye out for when doing your 360. It
will stand out against the otherwise rolling waters.
In conditions of swells and moderate winds, disregard wind direction. The swells are
what is important. The idea is to select a heading that minimizes the chance of rapid
deceleration which, just as in a off-airport landing on land, is what poses the greatest
danger. The U.S. Coast Guard goes into great detail about this, but we can distill the
most important points.

Splash!
If at all possible, you want to land along, or parallel to, the swell, not across it. The
best location is along the crest of the swell which minimizes the chance of a wingtip
digging into the water. Second best is in the trough or bottom of the swell. Along the
sides is more difficult because of the bank angle required and the increased likelihood

of catching a wingtip. Keep in mind that the swell system is always on the move. As
you get near the water, you must be prepared to maneuver a bit to track the imaginary
centerline of the landing spot you have settled on.
Landing across the swells presents the greatest risk. If, for some reason, you find
yourself with no other choice, try to land on the back side of the swell. Landing
directly into the face of the swell will give you a good lesson in how hard water can
be when impacted at relatively high speed.
Wind direction should be considered only if you know that its velocity exceeds onethird to one-half the speed at which you will touch down. In that case, the USCG
recommends a compromise between the swell direction and the wind or landing into
the wind. In either case, your chances of success are diminished.
As on land, touchdown speed is among the most critical factors in survivability. For
years it has been taught that fixed gear was a liability in a ditching because it would
theoretically dig into the water and flip the aircraft. However, the reality is that fixed
gear aircraft have the highest survival rate since they generally land at a slower speed.
Retractable gear should be left in the wells. The lower strength of retractable gear
could result in the gear being ripped off, opening the wing and increasing the
likelihood of the aircraft sinking quickly or digging in a wingtip and cartwheeling.
High wing aircraft should generally be ditched with full flaps. However, because
egress from a sinking or submerged aircraft is such an important factor, determine
ahead of time what effect flap position has on this. In some high wing aircraft,
lowered flaps can prevent opening of emergency exits. Low wing aircraft should leave
the flaps retracted to prevent them pitching the aircraft down upon impact which
could cause it to pitch over on its back.
If power is available, use it to make a shallow approach low over the water at 5 to 10
kts above stall. Look for those smooth areas; if one is apparent, even if it seems small,
cut power as you approach it. Without power, take extra care to avoid the full stall on
landing which could result in the nose dropping into the water first. Bear in mind that
the typical light plane will take only about hundred feet to stop, if that much. The
water absorbs energy rapidly.
If the surface of the water is glassy smooth, making it hard to judge height, the USCG
recommends maintaining a 9 degree to 12 degree nose up attitude and 10 to 20
percent above stall until contact is made. On a dark night this may be your only
option.
Maintain control at all times. Keep the wings parallel with the surface as long as
possible. As soon as contact is made, pull back to keep the nose up as long as
possible, similar to a soft field landing.
If you stay in control and do not dig a wing into the water, once contact is made, the
aircraft will probably do one of three things, or a combination of these three:
1. It may skip, especially if it is a retractable. If this occurs, warn everyone to stay in
the crash position. Keep flying the aircraft at all times.

2. It may nose into the water, coming to an abrupt stop. The aircraft may even
partially submerge, or at least seem to, but it will bob to the surface rapidly. This is
the most likely scenario with a fixed gear and also the likely end result after skipping
as well. When this occurs it is not unusual for the windscreen to cave in and the water
to inundate the cockpit in a wall of water. Be forewarned so you don't inadvertently
swallow this water.
3. Finally, the aircraft may flip over, coming to rest on its back.
No matter what happens, maintain the crash position until all forward motion ceases.
Don't panic. It is easy to become disoriented from the water rushing in.

Get Out Fast!

Having landed, you are now faced with getting out of the aircraft. Under the best
circumstances, the aircraft will come to a halt and float in a noise down position, since
that is the natural floatation attitude for the typical light plane.
If you are flying a low wing aircraft, there is a good possibility that you will be able to
exit the aircraft onto the wing and disembark into the water or your raft from there.
Get out as quickly as possible, taking your emergency equipment with you. Even if
the aircraft is floating on the surface, be prepared for it to sink under you at any time,
without warning. Get away from the aircraft as quickly as possible.
There have been occasions when a ditching survivor or survivors have climbed onto
the tail of a low wing aircraft, counterbalancing the heavy forward. The aircraft
remained afloat long enough for them to be rescued. If you do not have a raft
available, this might be an possibility to consider as a last resort if conditions permit.
You have a much better chance of being found if the plane is still floating since it
presents such a large target, compared to the minuscule target of your head in a life
vest.
With a high wing aircraft, odds are that you may have to wait until it partially or
completely submerges before you can open the door(s). If a low wing aircraft noses in
or flips this can also be the scenario you have to deal with. This can be a scary time as
the water rises. Calm yourself, don't panic. There is plenty of time to get out, as long
as you don't panic. As counter-intuitive as it may sound, you can sometimes hasten the
equalization of pressure, and thereby your exit, by opening side windows to let water
in faster.
The following applies no mater if you are submerging right side up or upside down:
Don't release your lap belt until you are ready to egress and, preferably, not until
you have a door or emergency exit open. When you are ready to release the belt,
you may have difficulty locating the buckle. Don't panic. To find it, slap your leg with
your hand, then follow your leg up to your waist and the belt and then along it to the
buckle.
Be conscious of how your seat belt/shoulder harness release operates. Most often it is
different from the one you unlatch multiple times daily in your car. "Instinct," or more

properly in this case, the primacy of ingrained behavior will kill you just as surely as
panic. If the belts don't release after your initial attempt, do not panic. STOP and
THINK, then try again to operate the release for your belt, this time the one in the
aircraft, not the one in your car.
Avoid the temptation to follow the air up and back into the tail. You want to get out,
not get trapped. Avoid hyperventilating. Take no more than three deep breaths before
holding your breath for the exit.

Deliberate Offset
If you didn't have time to jamb the exit open, you will have to open it. Locating an
exit latch under water or in the dark can be very difficult. Use the concept of
"deliberate offset," adapting this traditional navigation technique, to help in such
situations: Forget about "up" and "down" except as they relate to your seated position.
Reach out with the hand closest to the exit and deliberately reach low. Don't try for
where you expect the handle to be, it probably won't be there. Starting low, work your
way up to a feature you recognize such as an arm rest or door seam and then move
along that feature until you reach the door handle or emergency exit latch.
If you have to release your belt to make your way to an exit, or having opened the
exit, are ready to exit, the first thing to do is to grab hold of a reference point. This is
critical. Don't release your belt without having hold of a reference point. Never let go
with both hands! Always keep one hand gripping, not just touching, a reference point.
Don't let go of one until you have another firmly gripped. Both these techniques,
deliberate offset and use of reference points, can be practiced on the ramp by simply
closing your eyes and moving around inside the aircraft. It isn't as effective as
underwater egress training, but familiarity can make a difference.
Even with the water pressure equalized on both sides, the door may be difficult to
open. Push hard. If the exit is blocked, don't hesitate in moving to an alternative.
Maintain your reference points.
On most non-pressurized light aircraft you can forcibly eject the windows or baggage
compartment door. Rest both feet on the exit with knees bent, grab hold of something
firm to brace yourself and force your feet out with all your strength.
When you exit, grab the edge of the exit and pull yourself through. Don't kick! Unless
you are alone, someone is likely right behind you. If you get stuck, back up a bit,
rotate some and try again. Don't panic.

Safely Out
Once clear of the aircraft, head to the surface. If you aren't sure which way is up, one
strategy is to let out a little air, the bubbles will rise. A more expeditious method is to
simply inflate your life jacket. This will raise you to the surface instantly. As you rise,
swimming or propelled by the vest's inflation, exhale slowly and stick a hand above
your head. It's entirely likely you will rise into something, possibly something

hazardous. Best not to impact it with your head first or to tear the vest on a ragged
edge of metal.
If the aircraft is floating, the temptation to re-enter and help someone out can be
strong. Consider carefully, for the plane will likely sink without warning. If the plane
is submerged, never re-enter. If you need to try and help someone, dive down, get a
good grip on something on the exterior and reach in. Otherwise, a panicked or
drowning person can easily pull you inside inadvertently, trapping you both.
The inflation pulls on aviation life vests are labeled "jerk to inflate." That is not an
insult. They say "jerk to inflate" because that's what it takes. Simply pulling will
usually not do it, unless you are very strong. It takes a jerk and a strong one at that.
Most people with no previous experience don't jerk hard enough, especially if already
in the water. Some then panic because it didn't work. If, for some reason, it doesn't
inflate, blow up the vest manually using the oral inflation tubes, found on the sides of
typical airline style vests.
After the vest inflates you will likely want to deflate it somewhat by pressing in the
check valves in the end of the oral inflation tubes. This won't significantly effect
buoyancy, but it will make it much more comfortable, easing the pressure on your
head. With temperature changes, from night to daytime for example, you will need to
inflate and deflate the cells as appropriate using the oral inflation tubes.
Whether you got out a good mayday call or not, the chances for rescue are good,
provided you are properly equipped and take an active part in your rescue. You
present only a one square foot target floating in the water. Even a four man raft will
only be 13 to 16 square feet. Many is the story of survivors floating in the water
watching SAR and others pass them by in boats and aircraft and no means to signal.
Imagine the frustration as fellow survivors die when you can see rescue, but they don't
see you. Imagine the consequences if they never do see you until too late. Equip
yourself to survive.
With proper preparation, execution and, very important, the right survival equipment,
ditching can be a relatively safe ending to a star crossed flight. If you maintain control
of the aircraft and stay calm, you and your passengers should be fine, a bit wet
perhaps, but little worse for the wear.