Emergency landing theoretical

[gatt]

Question for you guys:

I fly out of Troutdale, Oregon (KTTD) which is at the mouth of the Columbia
River Gorge. Because of sheer cliffs, tunnels, things like that, if I had
to make an emergency landing in a single engine aircraft, in some stretches
it would be treacherous or impossible to land on the road.

As a boater, however, I'm familiar with the river charts and know that much
of it is only 2 to 4 feet deep. So if I knew, reasonably, that I could
ditch very shallow water, would that be a viable emergency landing plan as
opposed to a winding and potentially busy freeway with a 700' cliff on one
side?

Different in high wing verses low wing?

-c

[Dale Falk]

In article >,
"gatt" > wrote:

> Question for you guys:
>
> I fly out of Troutdale, Oregon (KTTD) which is at the mouth of the Columbia
> River Gorge. Because of sheer cliffs, tunnels, things like that, if I had
> to make an emergency landing in a single engine aircraft, in some stretches
> it would be treacherous or impossible to land on the road.
>
> As a boater, however, I'm familiar with the river charts and know that much
> of it is only 2 to 4 feet deep. So if I knew, reasonably, that I could
> ditch very shallow water, would that be a viable emergency landing plan as
> opposed to a winding and potentially busy freeway with a 700' cliff on one
> side?
>
> Different in high wing verses low wing?


High wing you may end up "floating" under water where with a low wing
you'll be above the surface probably.

I recommend that you take a course in aircraft survival that lets you do
the "dilbert dunker" thing. Get some practical experience escaping from
an aircraft in the water...it may save your life.

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

Gatt
I know the area fairly well.... If you had an engine failure I'd sure
opt for the upstream landing as near the shore as possible. The
problem, as you probably know, is all the submerged pilings from docks,
wharves, etc. And, the current is ferocious so I'd damned sure want to
be close to the beach, such as it is. Now, if you could make it to the
freeway or interstate? Its a crap shoot. I often wonder about the
options and what I'd do but until it happens you can only speculate and
try to play, "What if....."
If you are doing that much, you are way ahead of the game and will be
an interesting story on "News At 9" instead of a statistic with NTSB.
Hope you never have to make that choice!
Cheers and fly safe

[Morgans]

"Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote

> opt for the upstream landing

Why upstream? Seems to me that it would be better to land with the waves
and current. Less deceleration, and all.
--
Jim in NC

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

Jim
Think of ground speed? Whats gonna happen when you finally settle to a
stop and the current takes over?

[gatt]

"Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in message

> Jim
> Think of ground speed? Whats gonna happen when you finally settle to a
> stop and the current takes over?


Interesting stuff. In the area I'm talking about the water is very shallow
(2'-4') and there's almost no current. There IS the ever-present
possibility of 10-50mph wind.

(Different story in the channel, but I wouldn't land there.)

-c

[Morgans]

"Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Jim
> Think of ground speed? Whats gonna happen when you finally settle to a
> stop and the current takes over?

Within about 5 seconds of stopping in the water, you will be going the same
relative ground speed, (down stream) no matter which way you land. A few
knots, of drifting current speed, hitting a sudden stop on land is not going
to hurt very much.

If you are talking about decelerating from 60 knots, landing with the
current of 5 knots means you are only touching down at 55 knots. Landing
against the current means you are touching down at 65 knots. That 10 knots
sounds significant, to me.

This is all saying that you are not going to hit any land while you are
still slowing down, which is the only way I can figure your point means
anything. If that is it, I'll be trying really hard not to hit any land
until I am stopped.

What am I missing, that someone else far smarter than me has already figured
out? Id doesn't make sense to me.

All in all, wind speed and direction would be the most important factor, I
would think.
--
Jim in NC

[Doug]

You will probably flip over. If the doors are closed you wont be able
to open them until the plane fills with water. I hope you have shoulder
harnesses. Land downstream if possible. This will minimize speed over
the water.

[Peter Duniho]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> Within about 5 seconds of stopping in the water, you will be going the
> same relative ground speed, (down stream) no matter which way you land. A
> few knots, of drifting current speed, hitting a sudden stop on land is not
> going to hurt very much.
>
> If you are talking about decelerating from 60 knots, landing with the
> current of 5 knots means you are only touching down at 55 knots. Landing
> against the current means you are touching down at 65 knots. That 10
> knots sounds significant, to me.

It is, and in many cases the current is more than 5 knots, making an even
bigger difference.

Your analysis is correct, and barring any other issues, downstream is better
than upstream.

Of course, the chance of a messy landing is significant in any case. But
you want to give yourself the least chance of a messy landing, and lowest
water speed is the way to go for that (ie, downstream).

The situation in this particular instance may warrant a different decision,
of course. Since there's a particular location from which the original
poster is departing, and since the river has a specific configuration both
upstream and downstream from that location, and since there may be a more
desirable ditching area upstream than downstream, it's entirely possible
that in that situation specifically, upstream is preferable.

Pete

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

Jim
An important factor is the wind in the gorge nearly always is blowing
east to west and it happens to be with the water current too. Not
uncommon for the winds to be blowing there in excess of 50 knots. If I
recall, the max winds recorded there are well in excess of 100 mph!
I landed seaplanes a number of times on rivers, mainly the Mississippi
which in many ways reminds me of the Columbia. I've lived on the shores
of both and often thought of the way I'd make an emergency landing to
the water. Includes rivers, lakes, and ocean. Since each situation is
so different its nearly impossible to say it should be done one way or
other.

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

Pete
You hit the nail on the head. Winds in the gorge are often in excess of
50 mph and flow with the current direction 90% of the time. It is a
wide river mostly flowing east to west with some pretty steep terrain
on either side. An interstate runs parallel on the south side, and a
major highway of varying 2-4 lanes on the north as well as the
railroad.
I spoke too quickly in landing direction but most of my potential
landing sites were in steep terrain with a lot of rapids and you sure
didn't want to go downstream like a leaky poorly designed canoe!
Most of the time, if there is a current flowing, I've landed seaplanes
upstream to use the idle speed as a brake for sailing and docking.
Probably more important than current is wind direction except in
special circumstances.
Cheers
Rocky

[Doug]

Let's assume the wind and current are the same directon. When the wind
speed exceeds the current speed, then the lowest speed relative to the
water is landing with the wind (which is upstream).

[Peter Duniho]

"Doug" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Let's assume the wind and current are the same directon. When the wind
> speed exceeds the current speed, then the lowest speed relative to the
> water is landing with the wind (which is upstream).

Most of us use the phrase "with the wind" to describe a downwind direction.
"Into the wind" would be upwind (and upstream).

Assuming you've simply misphrased your statement, and you meant to write
"landing into the wind", then yes, you're correct. A wind in the same
direction of and in excess of the current speed would result in a lower
water speed landing into it, upwind rather than downwind (and upstream
rather than downstream).

Which is essentially what Rocky wrote (ie "more important than current is
wind direction").

Pete

[Tony]

open the door before touching down: airframes bend, doors get stuck.

[[email protected]]

> Much discussion regarding ditching and other
> cras^h^h^h^h landings.

The other day I saw an amazing Video on the internet
of a landing (really, no cras) on a tiny "gravel bar"
on a river by skipping across the water for a bit
first.
I have tried to find it again but I can not at present.

I seem to recall that it was s Super Cub on tundra tyres.

This seems the kit to have.

[Morgans]

> wrote

> The other day I saw an amazing Video on the internet
> of a landing (really, no cras) on a tiny "gravel bar"
> on a river by skipping across the water for a bit
> first.
> I have tried to find it again but I can not at present.
>
> I seem to recall that it was s Super Cub on tundra tyres.
>
> This seems the kit to have.

This would be the kit to have, if the flying you want to do, involves
landing on a gravel bar. This is because that is the very best, if not
only, place there is to land.

Where I live, I would be hard pressed to find a suitable river, with a
suitable gravel bar. There are tons of other options for better places to
land, however.

With all of this in mind, if this is the kind of flying you want to do, be
prepared to gain much, much experience, and skill.

The skipping-water-gravel bar-landing is a maneuver for a very experienced
pilot, but I hope you already know that.
--
Jim in NC

[Jim Macklin]

try www.cubcrafters.com



> wrote in message
oups.com...
|> Much discussion regarding ditching and other
| > cras^h^h^h^h landings.
|
| The other day I saw an amazing Video on the internet
| of a landing (really, no cras) on a tiny "gravel bar"
| on a river by skipping across the water for a bit
| first.
| I have tried to find it again but I can not at present.
|
| I seem to recall that it was s Super Cub on tundra tyres.
|
| This seems the kit to have.
|

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

I'd bet it was a clip on the "Sherpa" where he does just exactly that.
Quite an airplane and ideal for bush flying.

[Roger]

On 12 May 2006 16:34:41 -0700, "Ol Shy & Bashful"
> wrote:

>I'd bet it was a clip on the "Sherpa" where he does just exactly that.
>Quite an airplane and ideal for bush flying.

You forgot the Ugly as sin part, but I'd still like to have one.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[GeorgeC]

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/Super_Cub_Landing.wmv

On 12 May 2006 13:04:40 -0700, wrote:

>> Much discussion regarding ditching and other
>> cras^h^h^h^h landings.
>
>The other day I saw an amazing Video on the internet
>of a landing (really, no cras) on a tiny "gravel bar"
>on a river by skipping across the water for a bit
>first.
>I have tried to find it again but I can not at present.
>
>I seem to recall that it was s Super Cub on tundra tyres.
>
>This seems the kit to have.

GeorgeC

[Highflyer]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Much discussion regarding ditching and other
>> cras^h^h^h^h landings.
>
> The other day I saw an amazing Video on the internet
> of a landing (really, no cras) on a tiny "gravel bar"
> on a river by skipping across the water for a bit
> first.
> I have tried to find it again but I can not at present.
>
> I seem to recall that it was s Super Cub on tundra tyres.
>
> This seems the kit to have.
>

I have done it with a Taylorcraft L2 with standard 6:00 X 6 tires. No
problem. Just keep your speed up until you get your wheels onto the gravel.
With much of the aircraft weight supported by the wings, it would be a real
chore to sink those tires. You will hydroplane on the water just like you
do on a wet runway. See the photos going around and the movie clip of the
T-6's water skiing in formation in South Africa. Their tails are pretty
darn high. They are holding those babies onto the water. I do recommend a
smooth landing though! :-) I have taken off again by getting my speed up
enough on the gravel to avoid sinking when I hit the water. It does throw
one heck of a rooster tail though! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

[Bob Chilcoat]

John,

I'm not sure I'd like to try it in a nosedragger. That little tire on the
front of the Archer looks like it would dig in really quick. Could make you
feel REALLY stupid while trying to explain to your wife why you have this
broken nose and the airplane is in the lake.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Highflyer" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>> Much discussion regarding ditching and other
>>> cras^h^h^h^h landings.
>>
>> The other day I saw an amazing Video on the internet
>> of a landing (really, no cras) on a tiny "gravel bar"
>> on a river by skipping across the water for a bit
>> first.
>> I have tried to find it again but I can not at present.
>>
>> I seem to recall that it was s Super Cub on tundra tyres.
>>
>> This seems the kit to have.
>>
>
> I have done it with a Taylorcraft L2 with standard 6:00 X 6 tires. No
> problem. Just keep your speed up until you get your wheels onto the
> gravel. With much of the aircraft weight supported by the wings, it would
> be a real chore to sink those tires. You will hydroplane on the water
> just like you do on a wet runway. See the photos going around and the
> movie clip of the T-6's water skiing in formation in South Africa. Their
> tails are pretty darn high. They are holding those babies onto the water.
> I do recommend a smooth landing though! :-) I have taken off again by
> getting my speed up enough on the gravel to avoid sinking when I hit the
> water. It does throw one heck of a rooster tail though! :-)
>
> Highflyer
> Highflight Aviation Services
> Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )
>
>