Why does a lot of pilots fear flying over water?

[JHW]

Yes, but planes don't just flip over upon ditching either. Plenty of people ditch fixed-gear airplanes and stay upright.

I've witnessed that. Not only did it stay upright, it also floated for as long as we had fuel to circle overhead and watch. So we also watched all 4 people on board die despite the "successful" ditching. Given almost any other choice, no water for me.

 

[Timmer]

I've witnessed that. Not only did it stay upright, it also floated for as long as we had fuel to circle overhead and watch. So we also watched all 4 people on board die despite the "successful" ditching. Given almost any other choice, no water for me.

Were they unable to get out or knocked unconscious in the crash or do you know? That's gotta suck to witness that

 

[Timmer]

This is a good one, but hard to watch:

 

[JHW]

Were they unable to get out or knocked unconscious in the crash or do you know? That's gotta suck to witness that

2 never came out of the plane. The other 2 struggled and drowned over a period of about 20 minutes. They had flotation vests. The water was not that rough but somewhat cold. Whale watching flight. Boat took almost an hour to get to them. We were in privett's aztec, not much we could do other than mark the spot for the boat.

 

[dans2992]

2 never came out of the plane. The other 2 struggled and drowned over a period of about 20 minutes. They had flotation vests. The water was not that rough but somewhat cold. Whale watching flight. Boat took almost an hour to get to them. We were in privett's aztec, not much we could do other than mark the spot for the boat.

Wow.

How cold? What body of water?

Did they become unconscious and the vests didn't hold their heads above water?

Surprised they didn't sit on the wing and/or try to drag the other two out. Probably harder than it looks, I suppose.

 

[FloridaPilot]

This is a good one, but hard to watch:

Sad story,

I'm from the northwest and the waters there are frigid because of the surrounding mountains. (Water Temps 30-45f all year)

Float planes are made to land on water and with 4 landing gears wouldn't it be a bit different compared to a plane with 3 landing gears?

 

[JHW]

How cold? What body of water?

out of sight of land to the south of port elizabeth. Cold enough, i guess. It was July so wintertime, such as it is.

 

[dans2992]

out of sight of land to the south of port elizabeth. Cold enough, i guess. It was July so wintertime, such as it is.

Looks like the water is typically 64 F that time of year.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Float planes are made to land on water and with 4 landing gears wouldn't it be a bit different compared to a plane with 3 landing gears?

Not only 4 vs. 3, but with a much greater moment.

 

[steingar]

Ditching is VERY survivable.

http://www.equipped.com/ditchingmyths.htm

Bring good lifejackets, rescue gear, a quality life raft, and your odds are excellent. At least as good as land.

A couple years ago I was diverted by wx out over Lake Michigan en route to the show. I hadn't expected it and had no flotation, though a piece of camping gear within reach would have functioned nicely. But I thought about it, even if I could get out of the aircraft with my improvised flotation device, it would take at least an hour for anyone to get me, and in that water I'd be dead before they did. There were no boats anywhere. So I thought while out of gliding distance from shore, what I'd do if the mill quit. I had a choice between hypothermia, drowning, or blunt force trauma (if I went straight in).

We takes our chances, and sometimes your number's up. Mrs. Steingar knits, can't exactly see myself taking it up.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

The vast majority of fixed gear aircraft that have gone into the water have flipped over. This includes quite a few Amphibs like beavers, 180's, etc. usually fatal or very serious Injurys , or both. Brig gen. Charles Blair , a highly respected aviator,many many hours, holder of many medals was done in by a Grumman goose. If he could not handle a water emergency.....how about you? If you've ever fallen off water skis at 30 mph, you know how soft the water is at that speed. Like concrete.

 

[dans2992]

If you are in a retract, a gear up landing on concrete is usually survivable though.

 

[FloridaPilot]

Thanks,

What I learned from this post is that there isn't a "Sure fire way" to survive from a water landing or landing in the trees. It all depends on where you are at the time of the emergency. Slow down as much as you can where you decide to land. Make sure you have control of the airplane all the way to the landing as much as possible. Wherever you decide to land can turn out badly so do the best that you can with what you have at your disposal!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The vast majority of fixed gear aircraft that have gone into the water have flipped over. This includes quite a few Amphibs like beavers, 180's, etc. usually fatal or very serious Injurys , or both. Brig gen. Charles Blair , a highly respected aviator,many many hours, holder of many medals was done in by a Grumman goose. If he could not handle a water emergency.....how about you? If you've ever fallen off water skis at 30 mph, you know how soft the water is at that speed. Like concrete.

Do you have a reference? Everything I've ever read about ditching from reasonably authoritative sources states the exact opposite. In fact, I've seen at least one that went so far as to say a retract should be ditched with the gear DOWN.

Yes, amphibs tend to flip. That's because the moment arm of the gear is much greater than on a fixed-gear land plane.

Yes, water is like concrete at speed. (I broke three ribs when I wiped out on a jet-ski once, believe me, I know!) So, you can land a plane on it and skim on top until you sink in upright, as long as your vertical speed isn't excessive on touchdown.

 

[Cavorter]

Do you have a reference? Everything I've ever read about ditching from reasonably authoritative sources states the exact opposite.

And do you have a verifiable reference based on actual data for your assertion in red? You do realize, I hope, that it is not good enough to just read it. Just because it is printed does not mean it is true.

In fact, I've seen at least one that went so far as to say a retract should be ditched with the gear DOWN.

Reference please.

Yes, amphibs tend to flip. That's because the moment arm of the gear is much greater than on a fixed-gear land plane.

This amazes me. You apply logic to thinking about the moment arm of the gear but somehow fail to apply the same logic to compare the gear moment of the fixed gear (substantial although less than the amphib) to the gear moment of the retract gear when retracted (which is zero). Stop and think instead of just reading other flawed arguments and then parroting those.

If you argue that landing technique is more important I can accept that. A well timed flare with a fixed gear plane versus someone ditching a retract nose low is obviously going to favor the fixed gear plane being ditched. But if you take the same inept fool ditching a retract with the gear up versus a fixed gear, that fool is going to fail more times in the fixed gear because of PHYSICS people. Stop your mouths just running amok and think. Use your brains. Please.

 

[Electric]

And do you have a verifiable reference based on actual data for your assertion in red? You do realize, I hope, that it is not good enough to just read it. Just because it is printed does not mean it is true.




Reference please.



This amazes me. You apply logic to thinking about the moment arm of the gear but somehow fail to apply the same logic to compare the gear moment of the fixed gear (substantial although less than the amphib) to the gear moment of the retract gear when retracted (which is zero). Stop and think instead of just reading other flawed arguments and then parroting those.

If you argue that landing technique is more important I can accept that. A well timed flare with a fixed gear plane versus someone ditching a retract nose low is obviously going to favor the fixed gear plane being ditched. But if you take the same inept fool ditching a retract with the gear up versus a fixed gear, that fool is going to fail more times in the fixed gear because of PHYSICS people. Stop your mouths just running amok and think. Use your brains. Please.

Here: http://www.equipped.com/watertrees.htm

This link was already posted in this thread, but I'm reposting it just for you.

Key quote from the article: "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." Regardless if it's retractable or fixed.

I have attended a lecture hosted by this very same organization (sponsored by AOPA) and I have been taking very careful notes. Here is the summary:

1. Touch down as slow as possible in a nose high attitude, but still under control. Do not stall just above the water.

2. Land in to the wind, unless the swells are very large. Otherwise land along the swells. (as far as I remember if they are comparable to the size of the airplane you should land along the swells)

3. Low wing airplane should use only partial flaps to avoid accidentally touching down with one flap first. This will spin you around and rip your airplane apart.

4. While it is generally more advisable to ditch retractable airplanes gear up. Statistically, is debatable based on the their research.

 

[Cavorter]

Here:
This link was already posted in this thread, but I'm reposting it just for you.

Thank you nice article but it is not relevant to the argument of whether landing a retractable gear plane in water should be done with gear up or down if you want to prevent flipping.

 

[Electric]

Here is another article that talks specifically about ditching: http://www.equipped.com/ditchingmyths.htm

 

[Timmer]

... and just a few posts above:

http://www.equipped.com/ditchingmyths.htm

The accident record simply doesn't support this impression. In the 179 accidents we 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.

 

[Cavorter]

Here is another article that talks specifically about ditching: http://www.equipped.com/ditchingmyths.htm

Again not relevant. It says in fact in that article you linked to that:

"Unfortunately, the accident records shed no useful light on this controversy. "

The controversy in question being whether to land with the gear up or down. Have a look. Yes it highlights the section as
"Myth 5: In A Retractable, It's Better to Ditch With the Gear Up Than the Gear Down" which somehow implies that they are going to present proof that gear down is better than gear up but then they do no such thing. This is an excellent example of a sensationalist type article thin on evidence. Please show me with an actual quote based on actual evidence where they present proof that landing with the gear down is better. They don't.

 

[Cavorter]

... and just a few posts above:

http://www.equipped.com/ditchingmyths.htm

Are you people reading this stuff? They are saying there is not enough evidence to draw conclusions from the accident reports. STOP JUST READING THE HEADLINES! You are being fooled by the use of the word "myth". They present no data and no evidence.

 

[Electric]

Again not relevant. It says in fact in that article you linked to that:

"Unfortunately, the accident records shed no useful light on this controversy. "

The controversy in question being whether to land with the gear up or down. Have a look. Yes it highlights the section as
"Myth 5: In A Retractable, It's Better to Ditch With the Gear Up Than the Gear Down" which somehow implies that they are going to present proof that gear down is better than gear up but then they do no such thing. This is an excellent example of a sensationalist type article thin on evidence. Please show me with an actual quote based on actual evidence where they present proof that landing with the gear down is better. They don't.

All they are saying is that "since there is no proof that gear up is safer, it is a myth that you should always ditch gear up".

The point that I am trying to make is that regardless what's safer, both fixed and retractable airplanes have ditched successfully, more often than not.


Edit: Another point that I would like to make. While I do agree that you can ditch relatively safely in the small airplanes, because of the difficulty associated with the search and rescue of someone stuck in the middle of a large body of water, on a single engine airplane I try to stay within gliding distance to land if at all possible. I will only fly a single engine airplane over water at night or in the winter if there is an emergency. Also, if I ever have to be beyond gliding distance to land for a long period of time, I will be sure to have panty of survival gear and a Personal Locator Beacon.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Thank you nice article but it is not relevant to the argument of whether landing a retractable gear plane in water should be done with gear up or down if you want to prevent flipping.

How often do retractable gear airplanes flip when they land gear-up on solid ground surfaces?

 

[Timmer]

Are you people reading this stuff? They are saying there is not enough evidence to draw conclusions from the accident reports. STOP JUST READING THE HEADLINES! You are being fooled by the use of the word "myth". They present no data and no evidence.

Thank you for assuming the best of me -- that always helps these conversations. They presented the accidents they looked at. The point is exactly as you state: there is no proof that a majority of water ditchings involve flipping.

If I'm understanding something incorrectly, please discuss with me, but it's not too helpful to yell at me for only reading the headlines when I actually quote something that is not the headline.

 

[Timmer]

How often do retractable gear airplanes flip when they land gear-up on solid ground surfaces?

Hah, and that will always be the problem in comparing accident data: we only have data on actual accidents. It is probably safe to assume that all water ditchings end up in the NTSB as it will destroy an airplane while some number off-field landings are executed without damage and therefore don't have an NTSB entry and we don't know how many that is.

This is definitely the biggest issue for me when comparing water vs land emergency landings. It is still interesting to look at the numbers with that in mind, however, and they do seem to show that water ditchings don't have to be the death knell many see them as. Further, it is good to see what other variables affect survival rates in case you can put those in your favor in an actual incident.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

This amazes me. You apply logic to thinking about the moment arm of the gear but somehow fail to apply the same logic to compare the gear moment of the fixed gear (substantial although less than the amphib) to the gear moment of the retract gear when retracted (which is zero). Stop and think instead of just reading other flawed arguments and then parroting those.

I have stopped and thought, and you'd do well to not assume the worst of others here.

Without having any actual dimensional drawings of amphibs in front of me I'll have to guess, but I would estimate that the moment arm of the gear on a plane on amphib floats is probably around triple that of the same plane on fixed landing gear.

If you argue that landing technique is more important I can accept that. A well timed flare with a fixed gear plane versus someone ditching a retract nose low is obviously going to favor the fixed gear plane being ditched. But if you take the same inept fool ditching a retract with the gear up versus a fixed gear, that fool is going to fail more times in the fixed gear because of PHYSICS people.

True. But based on the examination in the links others provided a few posts up, it would appear that the record of fixed-gear planes ditching is actually quite good.

Stop your mouths just running amok and think. Use your brains. Please.

Just because we don't agree with you, doesn't mean we aren't using our brains.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Edit: Another point that I would like to make. While I do agree that you can ditch relatively safely in the small airplanes, because of the difficulty associated with the search and rescue of someone stuck in the middle of a large body of water, on a single engine airplane I try to stay within gliding distance to land if at all possible. I will only fly a single engine airplane over water at night or in the winter if there is an emergency. Also, if I ever have to be beyond gliding distance to land for a long period of time, I will be sure to have panty of survival gear and a Personal Locator Beacon.

Excellent points, all.

Personally, I carry a PLB in my flight bag all the time. They're good for more than just water landings!

When flying out of gliding distance to land, there are several things to consider. How can you remain within gliding distance of land for as long as possible? Who should you be talking to and what other actions can you take to ensure S&R gets dispatched ASAP if you have a problem? What temperature is the water you're flying over, and what's your time of useful consciousness if you go in? What equipment will you have on board (PFD's, raft, PLB, flares, etc)? When S&R gets to your vicinity, will it still be daylight out long enough for them to find you?

 

[MAKG1]

Without having any actual dimensional drawings of amphibs in front of me I'll have to guess, but I would estimate that the moment arm of the gear on a plane on amphib floats is probably around triple that of the same plane on fixed landing gear.

VERY unlikely.

Moment arm -- generally called torque by the rest of us -- is the FORCE applied a distance off axis. It is not the weight unless that is the only force, and it isn't here.

Floats are designed to minimize friction against the surface. Wheels are not. The distance from CG may be greater (or maybe not -- floatplanes have lower CG than equivalent land planes), but the torque for a normal landing will not be.

And there are a handful of reports of what happens when amphibs land in the water gear down. THAT is what you should be comparing -- the distance is almost identical but the forces are raised substantially by the wheels -- and it doesn't look good.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Moment arm -- generally called torque by the rest of us -- is the FORCE applied a distance off axis. It is not the weight unless that is the only force, and it isn't here.

No. "Moment Arm" or just "Arm" is a distance. "Moment" is a force times a distance.

Floats are designed to minimize friction against the surface. Wheels are not. The distance from CG may be greater (or maybe not -- floatplanes have lower CG than equivalent land planes), but the torque for a normal landing will not be.

The CG of a floatplane isn't all that much lower - The floats take away from the useful load, so they're designed to be as light as possible. They're a pretty small percentage of the weight of the plane.

In addition, as pointed out by another poster, there are more wheels on an amphib than a land plane. For example, there's a C180 on amphibs locally that has 6 wheels on its floats, instead of the 3 it'd have on wheels.

Finally, the distance from the CG is not only vertical. The amphibs I've seen tend to have a lot more distance fore and aft between their wheels, meaning they're even farther from the CG than they would be if you only measured the distance from the CG on the vertical axis.

And there are a handful of reports of what happens when amphibs land in the water gear down. THAT is what you should be comparing -- the distance is almost identical but the forces are raised substantially by the wheels -- and it doesn't look good.

And I'm saying that I don't think what happens when an amphib goes in with the wheels down has any relevance to the ability of someone flying a fixed-gear land plane to ditch and remain upright.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

Do you have a reference? Everything I've ever read about ditching from reasonably authoritative sources states the exact opposite. In fact, I've seen at least one that went so far as to say a retract should be ditched with the gear DOWN.

Yes, amphibs tend to flip. That's because the moment arm of the gear is much greater than on a fixed-gear land plane.

Yes, water is like concrete at speed. (I broke three ribs when I wiped out on a jet-ski once, believe me, I know!) So, you can land a plane on it and skim on top until you sink in upright, as long as your vertical speed isn't excessive on touchdown.

Please tell us about these authoritative sources. If you land a 180 Cessna , beaver on floats with the gear down, your going OVER! The two Grumman Seabees I'm aware of went over with the gear down. Landing a plane like a bonanza or a mooney in the water with the gear down would be really stupid. Military training never says gear down into the water. Stupid arguement.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Please tell us about these authoritative sources. If you land a 180 Cessna , beaver on floats with the gear down, your going OVER! The two Grumman Seabees I'm aware of went over with the gear down.

Nobody's arguing that an amphib with the gear down is gonna flip. We're talking about fixed gear land airplanes.