Forced Landing - What are your best options?

S

shawjames

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
25
Display Name
Display name:
S. James
"I-5 traffic, Cessna 1234X, turning left base I-5 Southbound, actual engine failure, I-5 traffic."
 
try to give a mile marker...
 
I'm pretty sure the traffic on I-5 doesn't have 121.5 or anything above 107.9MHz tuned in.
 
Who are you reporting too? Would be nice if we could call for landing on major highways.
 
Ah - I'm assuming you're reporting to ATC so that they can at least notify nearby First Responders?

If you can tell where you are going to land - i.e. I'm going to land on the north side of I-5 near <insert useful landmark here>, that may help.
 
Depending where along I-5, it may be my least favorite choice. Lots of people, lots of solid objects, and it will be difficult to get rescuers there due to traffic. I'd go for a median or shoulder if available and call a nearest location and direction/side.
 
Unless you're going through the Grapevine or through LA, most of the 5 is surrounded by nice big flat fields.
 
I've always wondered...if you're going to land on a highway do you land with the traffic or against?

With the traffic you're going to same way and that helps with closure rate, but people in front of you are going to instinctively hit the brakes when they see a plane in the rear view mirror. My guess is a car will stop much quicker than a plane.

Against the traffic closure rates go way up, but...people are looking forward and can see you and clear the road in time(?).

Assume daytime for this argument...
 
Captain said:
I've always wondered...if you're going to land on a highway do you land with the traffic or against?

With the traffic you're going to same way and that helps with closure rate, but people in front of you are going to instinctively hit the brakes when they see a plane in the rear view mirror. My guess is a car will stop much quicker than a plane.

Against the traffic closure rates go way up, but...people are looking forward and can see you and clear the road in time(?).

Assume daytime for this argument...
Click to expand...

You have a lot more options if the closure rate is slower, and not converging.
 
Captain said:
I've always wondered...if you're going to land on a highway do you land with the traffic or against?

With the traffic you're going to same way and that helps with closure rate, but people in front of you are going to instinctively hit the brakes when they see a plane in the rear view mirror. My guess is a car will stop much quicker than a plane.

Against the traffic closure rates go way up, but...people are looking forward and can see you and clear the road in time(?).

Assume daytime for this argument...
Click to expand...

With traffic, always the better option. Into the traffic won't be able to clear out of your way.
 
A few years ago a guy in a Cessna 150 merged with traffic on southbound I-75 along my route home. Worked just fine for him.

On the other hand, I helped move an airplane a couple miles down a two lane country road. The airplane had been put into a field with no damage - but there were way too many obstacles along the road for a landing there.
 
A few years ago someone had an engine out over the 680 (East Bay) and it didn't work out so well. The pilot and passenger survived, but a little girl in a minivan ahead of the plane had her leg cut off by the prop.
 
Captain said:
I've always wondered...if you're going to land on a highway do you land with the traffic or against?

With the traffic you're going to same way and that helps with closure rate, but people in front of you are going to instinctively hit the brakes when they see a plane in the rear view mirror. My guess is a car will stop much quicker than a plane.

Against the traffic closure rates go way up, but...people are looking forward and can see you and clear the road in time(?).

Assume daytime for this argument...
Click to expand...
There was a thread about this a few months ago. I'm going to see if I can dig it up.
 
Many factors that can play, time of day (rush hour or not), clearance such as poles, signs etc. an interstate or large highway would be my first choice depending on the condtion. Should you land with or against traffic? I would definetly land with the traffic rather than create a possible head on collision but then again it depends. I hope I never have to use this, but if push came to shove this would be my idea.
 
pick an empty semi flatbed going the same direction as you are... :D
 
Captain said:
Ithan a plane.

Against the traffic closure rates go way up, but...people are looking forward and can see you and clear the road in time(?).

.
Click to expand...

Deer in the headlights syndrome? Panic, and not move aside. :mad2:
 
Sac Arrow said:
Unless you're going through the Grapevine or through LA, most of the 5 is surrounded by nice big flat fields.
Click to expand...

And transmission lines. BIG transmission lines.

Not that they don't cross the highway, too.

And an airport or two (KSAC isn't far from I-5, and Harris Ranch is REAL close).

As for "with traffic or against," it's a very long, very straight, highway, and nothing prevents you from flaring at 100 knots and floating for miles. Drivers who aren't too busy picking their noses will notice you that way.

You may still be better off putting it in a field, and there really are quite a lot of them.
 
Last edited:
a quote from my CFI about night highway landings....

"land with the red lights, not the white ones".....

Hope I never experience it....
 
Although a big Interstate Highway might look appealing from a thousand feet and not to say that in certain conditions and circumstances it may not be but think for a minute what it would be like to be standing on that highway with an endless line of enormous semi's going past at 70 mph, not to mention the Nissan Alzheimers doing 90. Think of the carnage that occurs on our nations highways every day and those people are in vehicles far more substantially built than a Cessna 172.

In most cases it's better to forgo trying to not bend the airplane and go for an open area where you have minimal chance of plowing into a large stationary object, another moving vehicle or hitting powerlines. A distinct advantage would be a place where someone would likely see you or be able to reach you and provide aide if need be or at least call someone.
 
A three lane interstate highway is not much more than 40' between sign posts and reflectors. I've landed on 30' and 40' wide runways with no stress, but even then it wouldn't matter if I was 5-6' off center. On an interstate, 2 lanes will destroy both wings, and being even slightly off center on a 3-lane will cost one wing.

Add to that the stress of needing to land right now because something broke, and good luck staying centered on a high risk, narrow "field." But sometimes the highway really IS the best option.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Unless you're going through the Grapevine or through LA, most of the 5 is surrounded by nice big flat fields.
Click to expand...

Would landing in a farm field generally be a better option then a freeway?
 
shawjames said:
Would landing in a farm field generally be a better option then a freeway?
Click to expand...

It would almost certainly be safer because there's nothing to hit, you can probably land into the wind if there is any, no other people to injure or kill but the chances of pulling off a landing with zero damage to your airplane is much less.

Me? I'd probably take the field because the highway has too many ifs and potential hazards but it depends on the circumstance. There might be an open spot on the road, no traffic, perfect view and you can do it. The decision can't be made here at the keyboard.
 
I'll hope for flat ground with a firm surface and nothing bigger than small trees, no water to flip in, and a cooler of beer attended by the Swedish Bikini Team waiting nearby.
 
Captain said:
I've always wondered...if you're going to land on a highway do you land with the traffic or against?

With the traffic you're going to same way and that helps with closure rate, but people in front of you are going to instinctively hit the brakes when they see a plane in the rear view mirror. My guess is a car will stop much quicker than a plane.

Against the traffic closure rates go way up, but...people are looking forward and can see you and clear the road in time(?).

Assume daytime for this argument...
Click to expand...

Definitely with the traffic. For most light singles you're landing slower than the traffic moves. Back in college a friend's Dad was giving my a lift home when we ran into a snow squall. He put her down on the eastbound land and traffic adjusted. Taxied up the off ramp and the car that followed us up offered me a ride the rest of the way. The highway patrol arrived later and stopped traffic so he could take off from the westbound lane and get home.
 
Silvaire said:
It would almost certainly be safer because there's nothing to hit, you can probably land into the wind if there is any, no other people to injure or kill but the chances of pulling off a landing with zero damage to your airplane is much less.
Click to expand...
Lets see... As far as the old man's airplanes are concerned, the score is airplanes 2, field damage 0. One broken crank, and one fuel exhaustion ("I told them to fill it up" - my teen age sister). Both were flown back out with no damage from landing in the field.
 
Oh, I guess I will post this again for those who, apparently, did not read it the first time...

http://www.harrishillsoaring.org/doc/Kai_Off-airport_Ldgs.pdf

An inordinate number of accidents occur during off-airport landings, which is regrettable as I am convinced the majority are attributable to pilot error and could readily be avoided by proper training. Luck plays a surprisingly small role in successful field landings. Ninety-nine percent is know-how, preparation and skill.
I am reasonably qualified to address this subject having made, at this point in time, 169 off-airport landings



Kai Gertsen
Click to expand...
 
Hey, if you're going to land on a highway and don't know whether to land with or against the traffic, please land against it so we can stop arguing about how badly the airplane will get smashed up.

Seriously, my first choice would be a field next to the highway. If it was mountainous, forests or other place where I didn't get much choice, then a low approach over the highway and try to merge into traffic, slow down for the flare and hope the idiots behind you don't freak and try to pass. At 65-70 kts approach speed, I figure I'm probably going about as fast as traffic, depending on where the highway is. But I also figure that if most people see an airplane flying just in front of them and descending, they're probably going to start braking so the plane doesn't crash land on them. That might be the one time it's good to have that image.
 
shawjames said:
Would landing in a farm field generally be a better option then a freeway?
Click to expand...

Depending on the farm field, if it looks relatively flat with no visible power lines and or trees; given the option I'd probably take the field.
 
MAKG1 said:
And transmission lines. BIG transmission lines.

Not that they don't cross the highway, too.

And an airport or two (KSAC isn't far from I-5, and Harris Ranch is REAL close).

As for "with traffic or against," it's a very long, very straight, highway, and nothing prevents you from flaring at 100 knots and floating for miles. Drivers who aren't too busy picking their noses will notice you that way.

You may still be better off putting it in a field, and there really are quite a lot of them.
Click to expand...

This is true, although, as much as I hate to bring granny's underwear in to the conversation, it just depends....

shawjames said:
Would landing in a farm field generally be a better option then a freeway?
Click to expand...

Hard to generalize. Certainly it would during rush hour with stalled traffic. Granted, that isn't a common occurrence out in the middle of the Central Valley, but it can happen.
 
Been plenty of places where the highway was the best bet. Thankfully I haven't had to make that particular decision, and hope I never do. I have no doubt that if I did, it would be a choice for the least bad option.
 
Way back in the 1960's an old aquaintence of mine landed a champ (i think) on the george washington bridge in NJ/NY //with traffic... was going well until he caught up with a truck... Not sure if this adds anyhting to the discussion, just came to mind while reading the thread...
 
Captain said:
Against the traffic closure rates go way up, but...people are looking forward and can see you and clear the road in time(?).
Click to expand...

- "Hey bro ... a plane ... WTF?"
- "Yeah dude, werd, he's headed straight for us".
- "Bro ... use your iPhone".
- "Far out dude ... taping it now ... this is going straight on You..." *CRASH*
 
An analogous situation is our local bike trails. They paint "foot traffic use left hand shoulder." Except they don't use the shoulder, they use the lane, so as a biker, you have runners coming straight at you in your lane.

Dodging them isn't a problem if nobody's on the trail, but if it's busy, I'm either forced to make a risky pass in to oncoming bike traffic, or make a complete stop in front of them, ****ing us both off. Terrible practice. It's much easier to judge closure rates and merge in with them if we're both going the same direction.
 
And if you must land on a road because the local fields are all full of almond trees or oil derricks, there may be substantially better roads than I-5. Most of them are very straight down there, have very light traffic, and generally align with the wind better. Only the big ones have power lines. Two lanes plus a shoulder on either side is (barely) enough to squeeze a 172 in.
 
bflynn said:
Hey, if you're going to land on a highway and don't know whether to land with or against the traffic, please land against it so we can stop arguing about how badly the airplane will get smashed up.

Seriously, my first choice would be a field next to the highway. If it was mountainous, forests or other place where I didn't get much choice, then a low approach over the highway and try to merge into traffic, slow down for the flare and hope the idiots behind you don't freak and try to pass. At 65-70 kts approach speed, I figure I'm probably going about as fast as traffic, depending on where the highway is. But I also figure that if most people see an airplane flying just in front of them and descending, they're probably going to start braking so the plane doesn't crash land on them. That might be the one time it's good to have that image.
Click to expand...


Moving highways are not the problem, a vertical merge is simple for everyone and typically ends up on the news with no injuries and a traffic jam. It's heavily trafficked highways that pose the big risk, ones where the traffic is not faster than stall speed. Mountain passes they usually aren't a particularly pretty choice.
 
TMetzinger said:
Ah - I'm assuming you're reporting to ATC so that they can at least notify nearby First Responders?

If you can tell where you are going to land - i.e. I'm going to land on the north side of I-5 near <insert useful landmark here>, that may help.
Click to expand...


I thought you were going to write next of kin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top