Impossible Turn

[3Dreaming]

Fantastic photos Eddie. I must visit your part of the country!

Re off-field landings: Very rarely do we see the nice "textbook off-field landing" even with LSA's that stall around 32 kts with flaps. Recent incidents: A soccer field landing that went end-over-end. Another plane mushed to destruction (pilot hospitalized). Another LSA with CFI came down in a railroad yard after motor loss on climb out... fatal. Just a few days ago a SportCruiser landed on a golf course... pilot was also a CFI... ended up in a pond, swam to safety. Video footage of hauling the plane out with a crane was not pretty. Oh and least we forget dear Yorktown did a forced landing after fuel exhaustion... with his "judgement & skills" (or not) the plane was totaled.

Despite the textbook optimism, realistically odds are that a forced landing will result in a totaled airplane and hopefully no injuries IF you are lucky.

Tough to pull the chute (owner transfer handle) but easier with the realization that plane will most likely be totaled anyway.

Or is it that we don't get to read about the better landings?
I only know of one: Jabaru landed on a farm. Hardly a scratch on the plane.

Please don't take this as an attack, but in my opinion your thinking is a little flawed. Let me tell you why. You site a few cases where there was a problem with a forced landing. They were all over the media and reported to the FAA.

When you have a successful off airport landing it does not need to be reported to the FAA, and likely it will not be reported in the media. The one exception is if it happens in a major metropolitan area, then it might get some coverage. I have been involved with 2 off airport emergency landings. One was mine another was helping retrieve the airplane. Both resulted in no damage, no FAA report, and no media coverage. I think the simple fact is, unless there is major damage you don't hear about the incident. I also think that successful off airport emergency landings far out weigh the ones that are reported.

[CharlieTango]

I had 2 forced landings in my Challenger. Both times I was able to fly away after a little repair. In both cases there was no media and in both cases there would have been a news story If I was unable to fly away.

[3Dreaming]

It is kind of like DUI's. You hear of some people getting caught for DUI, but unfortunately there are far more out there who don't get caught.

[FastEddieB]

I did a lot of flying in S FL.

Much of it over swampy areas.

But there were almost always berms along the canals that looked good as landing sites - at least from the air.

A Cirrus had an engine problem, and this Google maps image probably approximates what he saw from the air:



So he chose to land instead of CAPS - a reasonable choice that worked out OK.

But take a look at how different things looked on the surface:





And this video made the round a ways back - a Yak with an engine out. You can fast forward to about the 6 minute mark for the actual landing.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lZvSmsIE_Ls

Point is, don't assume that great-looking field will continue to look that great all the way down!

[sandpiper]

You have to get down to about 700 ft at our speeds before you start to see the true nature of the landing area you picked.

[3Dreaming]

FastEddie, do you think we would have heard about the Cirrus landing, if there had been no damage?

[FastEddieB]

FastEddie, do you think we would have heard about the Cirrus landing, if there had been no damage?

That takes speculation, but my answer would be "probably".

The COPA board is very active, and it seems like every little incident, from rough running to engine failure, gets reported.

The one in question was reported in the news:

http://www.local10.com/news/Plane-makes ... er/9267524

Would the news have reported it if there was no damage? Googling "Cirrus forced landing Florida", which is how I sourced the above link, shows both successful and not-so-successful incidents reported by various news sources.

And ask yourself if the average poster to this forum would likely post about his or her successful off-airport landing. We know several have, but of course we can't know how many go unreported for whatever reason.

I think I've stipulated that there are big gaps in the data. So an accurate ratio of successful to unsuccessful off-airport landing incidents will likely never be known. And proponents of BRS will focus on the bad outcomes and proponents of off-airport landings as often preferable will focus on the good outcomes.

Just human nature!

[deltafox]

I have enjoyed this discussion and have added some insights on how to make my take off brief. Assuming a field elevation of 500': 1) Below 800' land straight ahead ~ hopefully on the runway. 2)Above 800' raise flaps and know that the BRS is now available. 3) 1200' turn crosswind and know that the "impossible turn" is now an option.

Do I have that right?

[3Dreaming]

FastEddie, do you think we would have heard about the Cirrus landing, if there had been no damage?

That takes speculation, but my answer would be "probably".

The COPA board is very active, and it seems like every little incident, from rough running to engine failure, gets reported.

The one in question was reported in the news:

http://www.local10.com/news/Plane-makes ... er/9267524

Would the news have reported it if there was no damage? Googling "Cirrus forced landing Florida", which is how I sourced the above link, shows both successful and not-so-successful incidents reported by various news sources.

And ask yourself if the average poster to this forum would likely post about his or her successful off-airport landing. We know several have, but of course we can't know how many go unreported for whatever reason.

I think I've stipulated that there are big gaps in the data. So an accurate ratio of successful to unsuccessful off-airport landing incidents will likely never be known. And proponents of BRS will focus on the bad outcomes and proponents of off-airport landings as often preferable will focus on the good outcomes.

Just human nature!

I am not trying to argue the use of the chute, or that trying to make a landing instead of pulling the handle is a better choice. I am just trying to point out that I have been around aviation long enough to know that there many successful unplanned off airport landings that never get reported to balance against the ones with bad outcomes that can be pulled up online. In my personal experience the ones with good outcomes far out weigh the bad ones.

In the area where I Live I think I would likely try and land the airplane most of the time. If I lived where you do I would likely be more inclined to pull the chute.

I do know someone who had a catastrophic engine failure in an airplane in your neck of the woods. They didn't have a chute to pull, but were lucky enough to make it to the big airport there in Knoxville. The only damage was a bent prop and scraped nose, because the engine failure damaged the nose gear not allowing it to come down.

[FastEddieB]

I am just trying to point out that I have been around aviation long enough to know that there many successful unplanned off airport landings that never get reported to balance against the ones with bad outcomes that can be pulled up online.

Already stipulated.

[3Dreaming]

I am just trying to point out that I have been around aviation long enough to know that there many successful unplanned off airport landings that never get reported to balance against the ones with bad outcomes that can be pulled up online.

Already stipulated.

FastEddie, Like I said I am not trying to argue the point, and I did not mean to imply that you did not recognize the lack of data. My statement was more directed at an earlier statement by another poster.
"Despite the textbook optimism, realistically odds are that a forced landing will result in a totaled airplane and hopefully no injuries IF you are lucky." In my opinion the odds are more in favor of not having this happen.

BTW, I have been around long enough to never make this assumption.
"Point is, don't assume that great-looking field will continue to look that great all the way down!"

[FastEddieB]

FastEddie, Like I said I am not trying to argue the point, and I did not mean to imply that you did not recognize the lack of data. My statement was more directed at an earlier statement by another poster.
"Despite the textbook optimism, realistically odds are that a forced landing will result in a totaled airplane and hopefully no injuries IF you are lucky." In my opinion the odds are more in favor of not having this happen.

BTW, I have been around long enough to never make this assumption.
"Point is, don't assume that great-looking field will continue to look that great all the way down!"

Wow!

That makes it kind of hard to argue when we're in total agreement.

Guess I'll have to look elsewhere for a fight!

[SportPilot]

.......

[CTLSi]

......

[CTLSi]

......