Using Chesapeake Bay Bridge/Tunnel as an emergency landing area

P

poadeleted3

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
2,055
I've been having an interesting discussion with another pilot regarding the desirability of using the Chesapeake Bay Bridge/Tunnel as an emergency landing area.

Looking at the sectionals, I've always thought that the bridge would be a good "out" if you lost your one and only engine while flying north/south over the bay, but now I'm not so sure. On the way back to Philly from South Carolina, we abandoned I-95 for the express purpose of driving over the bridge, because we'd never seen it before. That sucker is awfully skinny, with a LOT of light poles. I'm not at all certain a successful landing could be made there. But, as my pilot friend points out, if you don't land there, there are points where you won't be able to glide to shore, and this leaves ditching next to a boat as your only other option. Ditching isn't all that high a percentage maneuver in a small, fixed gear plane either.

For those who've seen the bridge, if you lost your engine over the bay and couldn't make land, would you try for a landing on the bridge, or try ditching in the bay?
 
Joe Williams said:
For those who've seen the bridge, if you lost your engine over the bay and couldn't make land, would you try for a landing on the bridge, or try ditching in the bay?
Click to expand...

I think I'd pick the very large, flat, hard surface, over the very small, narrow, obstructed hard surface.
 
Joe Williams said:
For those who've seen the bridge, if you lost your engine over the bay and couldn't make land, would you try for a landing on the bridge, or try ditching in the bay?
Click to expand...

You are right that the bridge itself is skinny and has a lot of light poles, I'd go for the ditching, as near as I could get to one of the "islands" at the tunnel entrances. Always people around and usually fishing boats.

Don't think you would be able to get a plane down on the roadway without some serious damage to the plane or yourself, even if you threaded your way through all the poles.

It is a very impressive sight from the air!

Gary
 
Gary said:
You are right that the bridge itself is skinny and has a lot of light poles, I'd go for the ditching, as near as I could get to one of the "islands" at the tunnel entrances. Always people around and usually fishing boats.

Don't think you would be able to get a plane down on the roadway without some serious damage to the plane or yourself, even if you threaded your way through all the poles.

It is a very impressive sight from the air!

Gary
Click to expand...

I agree serious damage is likely if you try the bridge, but then again, my only concern would be survival. I think I'd go for ditching too, but when we crossed the bridge the wind had the waves whipped up awfully high...
 
Joe Williams said:
Ditching isn't all that high a percentage maneuver in a small, fixed gear plane either.
Click to expand...
You're very wrong about that. Ditching has a >90% chance of a favorable outcome if you're not in the open ocean. Control is far more important than landing surface, and crashing into light poles eliminates your control.
 
Joe Williams said:
I agree serious damage is likely if you try the bridge, but then again, my only concern would be survival. I think I'd go for ditching too, but when we crossed the bridge the wind had the waves whipped up awfully high...
Click to expand...

Guess if you are going to "crash land" wether land or water, I'd rather do it just once!! Going for the roadway seems to have a high probability of spinning or bouncing off and ending up in the water anyway :hairraise: , not to mention hitting a car/truck already moving at 50 MPH. If the waters are rough, guess just have to deal with it, hope it never happens to anyone!

Gary
 
Joe Williams said:
I agree serious damage is likely if you try the bridge, but then again, my only concern would be survival. I think I'd go for ditching too, but when we crossed the bridge the wind had the waves whipped up awfully high...
Click to expand...

Tell ya what, between rough seas, cold water and a kid on board, my money would go for the roadbed just clearing one set of poles and making sure it's on the ground before the next. Obviously you are sacraficing the plane, but it's a chunk of aluminum, that's its job, let it sluff off energy shearing off wing parts. For me the smart money says tighten up the belts and stay dry although that does carry the extra risk of irate motorists beating you to death with tire tools.:hairraise:
 
Joe Williams said:
I agree serious damage is likely if you try the bridge, but then again, my only concern would be survival. I think I'd go for ditching too, but when we crossed the bridge the wind had the waves whipped up awfully high...
Click to expand...

No way I'd try for the bridge. That close to civilization you'd be much safer going for the water, hopefully with a boat nearby. Even if the bridge wasn't full of vehicles you'd have to be awfully lucky or awfully good to survive a landing attempt. There's even a good chance you'd end up in the water anyway (after a long fall off the bridge).
 
If you can try and ditch right near one of the tunnel entrances, that's the choice I think I'd make.... you ARE flying high enough to glide that far, aren't you?
 
Lets see this bridge before we decide, is it like the GG with all these wires and stuff? Pic?
 
Ken Ibold said:
You're very wrong about that. Ditching has a >90% chance of a favorable outcome if you're not in the open ocean. Control is far more important than landing surface, and crashing into light poles eliminates your control.
Click to expand...
Joe, go for the water.
Canopy full open
Seatbelts/shoulder harnesses ON
Approach parallel to swell lines (usual Chesapeake Bay surface)
Full flaps Do NOT STALL IT
DO NOT STALL IT
Get the Radio Call off...
Master OFF
Survival gear in YOUR LAP (on a lanyard to your seatbelt)
Wheel touch-elevater in your CHEST.
Wheeeeeee!
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Lets see this bridge before we decide, is it like the GG with all these wires and stuff? Pic?
Click to expand...

The supports are all under the bridge, for the most part. The kicker for me is that the sucker is skinny, with a whole bunch more light poles than I'd expected. And, as Lance pointed out, if you hit something and started sliding, I think it would be a real challenge to stay on the bridge.
 
My main concern would be the cars and trucks. I don't see any way to land on the road without hitting one.
 
I would go for the water. Having crossed that wonderful bridge tunnel combination go for the water if the winds are less the 30 knots at surface. The cars and trucks are not doing 50 they are close to 70 or better. I fly over at 5500 or better for I can make either shore at midpoint if the fan stops running . If you have to land on the bridge use the wings to absorb energy as you "land" It will not be pretty. It will be very ugly. Get the door open before landing and make sure you have you everone on board briefed of who gets out first before the "landing".

John J
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Lets see this bridge before we decide, is it like the GG with all these wires and stuff? Pic?
Click to expand...

No, it's a causeway type bridge. For me the choice would depend on the conditions, but if the sea state is up, that can be one rough piece of water. Without PFDs and survival suits, I'd go for the bridge. IIRC the light standards are pretty evenly spaced (although I'm typically looking at the bridge from the water). Wing span on a 172 is what, 36'+/-. The average lane width is 11'. It's a screwed situation either way. If you went into the water in winter and didn't have a survival suit, you'd be dead before they got to you unless a boat was watching you go in from really close by, and you hope it's a fast boat as well. In my experience, I'd much rather take a good 30-50 mph crash in a metal cage than be in 45* water without an exposure suit. Cold water will kill you quick.
 
Nav8tor said:
My main concern would be the cars and trucks. I don't see any way to land on the road without hitting one.
Click to expand...


If you ever have to land on a divided highway, and there is traffic moving on both sides, I've been taught to land on the side with traffic moving the same direction you are... you'll be slowing down through 70, 65, etc as you land, and as the cars you fly over see you fly over, they will naturally slow down, opening a hole for you... just hope the cars in FRONT of you don't slam on their brakes when (if) they see you in the rearview mirror. Even if they do, running into them at 30 mph is a lot less damaging to you than head-on with a semi doing 70 while you're slowing through 30...
 
Before I offer an answer, how tall and how far apart and what are the arrangement of those light poles?
 
I'd go for the bridge, I think... short field touchdown approach, kill the fuel when lined up and low and make the final steep and slow, and stall it out a few feet up for a harder touch down but maximum dispersal of forward momentum.

Now - how bad of an idea is that?
 
For me it's already decided: no single engine extended flights over water. Bridge or not, this is no different than, say, Lake Michigan. Not the answer you want, I know, but these things have been decided in advance. My only problem is sticking with the decision, especially when faced with alternates that may look viable, such as a nearby bridge.

However, IF I was over water AND there was nothing but that bridge I would definately ditch. In the water, close to the bridge, close to an island if possible. As Dr. Chien said, DO NOT STALL.
 
Troy Whistman said:
If you ever have to land on a divided highway, and there is traffic moving on both sides, I've been taught to land on the side with traffic moving the same direction you are... you'll be slowing down through 70, 65, etc as you land, and as the cars you fly over see you fly over, they will naturally slow down, opening a hole for you... just hope the cars in FRONT of you don't slam on their brakes when (if) they see you in the rearview mirror. Even if they do, running into them at 30 mph is a lot less damaging to you than head-on with a semi doing 70 while you're slowing through 30...
Click to expand...

From the pictures Joe posted, it looks like one lane in each direction. Not wide enough to land without taking up part of the on coming lane.
 
Henning said:
Tell ya what, between rough seas, cold water and a kid on board, my money would go for the roadbed just clearing one set of poles and making sure it's on the ground before the next. Obviously you are sacraficing the plane, but it's a chunk of aluminum, that's its job, let it sluff off energy shearing off wing parts. For me the smart money says tighten up the belts and stay dry although that does carry the extra risk of irate motorists beating you to death with tire tools.:hairraise:
Click to expand...
If the road were empty, maybe, but full of traffic? I dunno -- on the open water you ain't gonna get run over by a Kenworth after you touch down.

Also, drivers do really bizarre things when presented with unusual situations. There's a documented case of some guy dead-sticking onto a crowded California freeway in the middle of traffic, perfectly nailing the space between two cars -- and then the car in front of him looked in the rear view, saw an airplane, and slammed on the brakes. Folks, I'm here to tell ya, two 6.00-6 tires with little bitty disks are no match in stopping power for four 205/60-15's with power brakes and ABS.
 
FYI a small plane landed successfully on the two center lanes of the upper deck of the George Washington Bridge. This was before the central median was in place. This landing required piloting in between the suspension cables and somehow missing all the traffic. I doubt this would be possible today.

This information is from a GWB Trivia site, and there is no other information on that site.

http://www.fortleeonline.com/gwb/trivia.html

-Skip
 
Henning said:
No, it's a causeway type bridge. For me the choice would depend on the conditions, but if the sea state is up, that can be one rough piece of water. Without PFDs and survival suits, I'd go for the bridge. IIRC the light standards are pretty evenly spaced (although I'm typically looking at the bridge from the water). Wing span on a 172 is what, 36'+/-. The average lane width is 11'. It's a screwed situation either way. If you went into the water in winter and didn't have a survival suit, you'd be dead before they got to you unless a boat was watching you go in from really close by, and you hope it's a fast boat as well. In my experience, I'd much rather take a good 30-50 mph crash in a metal cage than be in 45* water without an exposure suit. Cold water will kill you quick.
Click to expand...

I agree that if the water's cold you're pretty well dead if you ditch and don't get picked up almost immediately. OTOH, if you have flotation gear, someone might be able to pick you out of the water before you die, but after you are ready to. I'd definitely try to ditch near a boat and make sure I got their attention before hitting the water.

One of the many problems I see with the bridge is the strong possibility of going off the side. Hit just one light pole before or just after touching down and you'd probably get spun right off. Even if you manage to stop while still on top, there's a pretty good chance that some SUV or 18 wheeler would punch you over the edge. And if you do go off the bridge, you won't have to worry about swimming in cold water cause the impact will kill you, or at least knock you out long enough to drown.
 
While everyone in the family swims well I don't know how well we'd do with broken legs, arms or head injuries?

My general rule is...fly high, glide long, cross at the narrow part.

If the Patuxent restricted areas are cold (such as R4007) it is easy to cross just south of the Washington ADIZ, say, at the GOFER intersection.

It is harder to cross at one of the narrower points if the Patuxent restricted ares are hot, especially if you are not permitted access to the Washington ADIZ. It is still doable. The miracle of GPS helps, certainly backed up with pilotage and a little flight following insurance on the side.

Len
 
Ditch as close to the shore line as possible.

I am told a Cessna with fixed gear will always always flip over. But other 's say no, it can be brought down without flipping..Which is it? If it can be kept upright then what's the trick? full flaps and a well timed flare?
 
corjulo said:
Ditch as close to the shore line as possible.

I am told a Cessna with fixed gear will always always flip over. But other 's say no, it can be brought down without flipping..Which is it? If it can be kept upright then what's the trick? full flaps and a well timed flare?
Click to expand...

From what I've read, your chances of flipping are more a function of ditching technique than landing gear configuration. Unfortunately it's expensive to practice ditching.
 
corjulo said:
Ditch as close to the shore line as possible.

I am told a Cessna with fixed gear will always always flip over. But other 's say no, it can be brought down without flipping..Which is it? If it can be kept upright then what's the trick? full flaps and a well timed flare?
Click to expand...

If you ditch 150' from the shore in 40* water with no PFD, my bet is on you dying. As to flipping over, that's more a function of how well you ditch it and the sea conditions. Run parallel with the seas and just float as long as you can in ground effect and just keep easing the stick back till it's in your gut and let her come in slow, and keep the stick back till you stop. If you manage to go in with the tail low and get water over the elevator early, it will hold the tail down.If you have wheel pants, you may also get some lift from them. Just remember, keep flying the plane till it stops, just because you don't have full control in a crash doesn't mean you don't have any, and your actions during that transitional phase of a crash may be the difference between living and dying.
 
I think the most important thing in ditching comes before controlling the impact, and that's selection of where to ditch. You want to do it somewhere that there are people who will see it and be able to aid you FAST. That means close to shore on a crowded beach with lifeguards, or next to a boat small enough to stop and render effective assistance (no big freighters or tankers unless you can land and stop on the top of a cargo container, because it takes them about 5 miles to stop), or stay airborne long enough for the SAR helo to get there before you hit the water. The advantage of the tunnel entrances on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge/Tunnel is that there are folks on duty there who can see what happens and get to you. If you land next to the bridge portion, there's no way for the folks driving by to help.
 
Ron Levy said:
I think the most important thing in ditching...
Click to expand...

...is to not get yourself into the position where ditching is your best option.

At the narrowest point the distance between the west side of the eastern shore of Maryland and across the Chesapeake Bay to a point of land far enough north of Patuxent NAS to be outside of their Class D and their restricted are and outside of the ADIZ is 7 or 8 statute miles.

Let's call it 8 statute miles.

Anyone that ran track in high school prior to the introduction of the metric system or who is a member of the mile high club knows that there are 5,280 feet in a mile.

Half of 8 is 4 but for our purposes lets use 5 miles to be safe in determining how high an aircraft must be to glide to land from a mid point over the bay.

Let's use a Grumman Lynx as our example, two reasons for this. One, I happen to remember that the glide ratio of a Grumman Lynx is 8 to 1 from my student pilot days. Two, it is probably the lowest glide ratio of single engine aircraft that most of us fly.

5 x 5,280 = 26,400

26,400 / 8 = 3,300

Theoretically, in a no wind condition, a Grumman Lynx should be able to glide to shore from a cruising altitude of 3,500 when crossing the Chesapeake Bay at the narrow point.

Personally, 3,500 would be a little low for me for several reasons (winds, pilot technique, suitability of landing spot near shore line, etc.) but if you are flying a route that takes you across the Chesapeake why not give yourself a fighting chance, why paint yourself into a corner by crossing at the widest part.

Len
 
Len Lanetti said:
...is to not get yourself into the position where ditching is your best option.

snip
Len
Click to expand...

Indeed. I remember planning a trip south, and debating whether or not to cross the Bay earlier, near the point you just suggested, or cross by the bridge. At the time, I thought the bridge would be a good "out." Now, the bay is only about 17 miles wide at that point, and the time when you couldn't get to shore from 6,500 or 7,500 feet is minimal but, as you point out, it is just as easy to reduce the time to zero without going all that far out of your way. I'm sure it's an impressive site from the air, as it certainly was from ground (well, bridge) level, but I'm a little chicken in some ways, and think I'll opt for the route that guarantees an ability to glide to shore should the one in a million engine out over water happen to me when I go (via plane this time) back to South Carolina this fall.
 
Joe Williams said:
At the time, I thought the bridge would be a good "out." Now, the bay is only about 17 miles wide at that point, .
Click to expand...

Don't have my sectionals handy, but I seem to believe that from Fisherman's Island to Cape Henry was about 10 NM. The Bay Bridge itself is about 14 NM long since it takes a bit of a curve going north to south.

Just picking nits here.

Gary
 
Ron Levy said:
I think the most important thing in ditching comes before controlling the impact, and that's selection of where to ditch. You want to do it somewhere that there are people who will see it and be able to aid you FAST. That means close to shore on a crowded beach with lifeguards, or next to a boat small enough to stop and render effective assistance (no big freighters or tankers unless you can land and stop on the top of a cargo container, because it takes them about 5 miles to stop), or stay airborne long enough for the SAR helo to get there before you hit the water. The advantage of the tunnel entrances on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge/Tunnel is that there are folks on duty there who can see what happens and get to you. If you land next to the bridge portion, there's no way for the folks driving by to help.
Click to expand...

Not me, I'll ditch next to a geared freighter or tanker anyday. They have a fast rescue boat that one man launches in under 2 minutes and trained professionals onboard to operate it in rescue mode. I don't trust the average boater to be able to effect a rescue without greater risk to life. BTW, if you operate near water frequently, it may behoove you to have a handheld marine VHF for emergencies. Use Channel 16 BTW to make your MADAY call.
 
Henning said:
If you ditch 150' from the shore in 40* water with no PFD, my bet is on you dying. QUOTE]

My first inclination was to disagree with that statement. But having reflected on past rescues and witnessing the alarming degree of disorientation and general lack of preparedness of most people I must agree. Even though your statement is overly broad.

Sadly, even the simple becomes too much for most people in an emergency situation, even a situation which could be resolved easily if given some forethought.
Click to expand...
 
Richard said:
Henning said:
If you ditch 150' from the shore in 40* water with no PFD, my bet is on you dying. QUOTE]

My first inclination was to disagree with that statement. But having reflected on past rescues and witnessing the alarming degree of disorientation and general lack of preparedness of most people I must agree. Even though your statement is overly broad.

Sadly, even the simple becomes too much for most people in an emergency situation, even a situation which could be resolved easily if given some forethought.
Click to expand...

Actually, my comment is to the water temprature. When you go into 40* water your muscles cramp up and your brain goes numb almost instantly as your body cores its blood supply.
Click to expand...
 
I'm not up on the regs since there's always CO2 vests & flares in my flightbag but, doesn't the FAA want pilots to stay within glide distance of land unless survival equipment is aboard ?

Vests on everybody, radio call out and then a water ditch near a terminus or a boat for me probably, unless light traffic permitted a gamble with weaving briefly with the unevenly paired street lights before slipping it down hard to skid to a stop from slow flight. Real, crashing, GA airplanes don't skid nearly as far as they do in the movies !
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
I'm not up on the regs since there's always CO2 vests & flares in my flightbag but, doesn't the FAA want pilots to stay within glide distance of land unless survival equipment is aboard ?
Click to expand...
Under Part 91, it's mandated only if being operated for hire. Ref: 14 CFR 91.205(b)(12). Other than that, while strongly recommended, it's up to the pilot/passengers to decide for themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top