Survivability of GA Crashes

[romair]

I keep a helicopter helmet in the back seat. If it is a survivable crash, it should help with possible head trauma.

My 3 point seat belts are 30 years old...what's the best way to replace them?

[DaV8or]

R U Serious?

 

Y do U ask? Y nt no?

[Alan Fox]

Seat belts can be sent to Amsafe to be rewebbed....

[scottfromiowa]

I am just going to start carrying a machete on the left armrest. Seat Belts, Savage natives, zombies...I got it all covered..

[MB65E]

I carry one of these on my lanyard.

Ya... TSA took my last one of those. They said it was a razor blade!! But they were not bothered by my 2in blade "key look a like".

My Recent TSA stories, they took my nice brand new small 5oz bottle of sunscreen, but missed my 3 inch knife in a carry on. They get so focused on "their find" and everything else is missed.

Ugg.

-Matt

[mooniac15u]

I know people that swear by gear up, and others that swear by gear down. Both can make pretty good arguments.

 

 

Most of the folks who swear by gear down are flying Cessna 172s.

[scottfromiowa]

Most...

[WardHolbrook]

Off airport landing gear up or gear down? For me it's an adult diaper - depends.

 

If the terrain is (relatively) smooth, like a road, beach, pasture, etc. then it's obviously wheels down. If I'm going into the water, then I'm going to be wheels up. If I'm going into any other terrain then I'll like lean towards gear down on the assumption that ANY foot pound energy that the landing gear absorbs as it is being ripped away is one less foot pound of energy that my butt will have to deal with. That being said, this is probably one of those damned if you do or damned if you don't scenarios. Like I said earlier, my goal is to contact the terrain as flat as possible and at minimum CONTROLLABLE airspeed and fly the thing to a stop.

 

As far as seat belts and harnesses go, it goes without saying that they should be in good condition. They do not last forever and should be replaced periodically. (i'm not sure what the suggested interval is, but most bizjets get new belt and harnesses every 10 years or so.) If your belts are over 10 or 15 years old it's probably time to get them rewebbed or replaced. If you're flying around in an airplane without harnesses, you're being very foolish. 

[WardHolbrook]

My 3 point seat belts are 30 years old...what's the best way to replace them?

Do an Google search for aircraft seat belts and aircraft seat belt re webbing. They are readily available. 

[PMcClure]

So my take aways are:

 

Make sure your airplane is in top shape to fly. 

Have a plan for engine failure on take-off. Mine includes the following:

1) Planned direction of landing. Tight seat belts. 

2) Nose over to fly the airplane to land

3) Gear up unless very obvious landing area. 

4) Master/mixture/fuel off, door open

 

Also, gain maximum altitude as quickly as possible on take off. 

 

I have purchased one of these:  http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000NPFP9I/ref=ox_sc_act_image_3?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

Hope to find a place to put it. 

 

I used to be a gear down guy, thinking it would help absorb energy. But after looking at pictures of the recent crash in San Diego, I noticed the entire nose gear assembly snapped off and lying behind the plane. I would rather it be tucked up in the wheel housing than busting through the cabin. Fuel lines are also right behind the gear. 

 

I hope I never have to use any of this stuff!

[scottfromiowa]

Y do U ask? Y nt no?

Because it just doesn't matter. You choose the best landing area and fly the plane to the touchdown spot.

Because risking injury in this scenario is of little value.

[WardHolbrook]

So my take aways are:

 

Make sure your airplane is in top shape to fly. 

Have a plan for engine failure on take-off. Mine includes the following:

1) Planned direction of landing. Tight seat belts. 

2) Nose over to fly the airplane to land

3) Gear up unless very obvious landing area. 

4) Master/mixture/fuel off, door open

 

Also, gain maximum altitude as quickly as possible on take off. 

 

I have purchased one of these:  http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000NPFP9I/ref=ox_sc_act_image_3?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

Hope to find a place to put it. 

 

I used to be a gear down guy, thinking it would help absorb energy. But after looking at pictures of the recent crash in San Diego, I noticed the entire nose gear assembly snapped off and lying behind the plane. I would rather it be tucked up in the wheel housing than busting through the cabin. Fuel lines are also right behind the gear. 

 

I hope I never have to use any of this stuff!

As far as gear up vs down, for every example of "it would be better if UP" I can show you an example of "it would be better if DOWN" and vise-versa. As for me, it's going to depend and even then, I'm going to hope that I've GUESSED correctly. 

[mooniac15u]

As far as gear up vs down, for every example of "it would be better if UP" I can show you an example of "it would be better if DOWN" and vise-versa. As for me, it's going to depend and even then, I'm going to hope that I've GUESSED correctly. 

 

Could you give a couple of examples where it would be better down?  I'm interested in survivability not where it would just be better for the aircraft.

 

NOT trying to start a debate; just curious for my own education.

[WardHolbrook]

Could you give a couple of examples where it would be better down?  I'm interested in survivability not where it would just be better for the aircraft.

 

NOT trying to start a debate; just curious for my own education.

Go do a study of the NTSB accident data base. They're there. In aviation, the terms "ALWAYS" and "NEVER" probably shouldn't be used very often. There are USUALLY examples where the contrary would have been better. For example, historically, most engine failures are as a result of fuel exhaustion. If you've run out of gas, why would you worry about rupturing a tank and starting a fire? Of course the best answer is to not run out of gas. But take the scenario where you're going into a field strewn with large rocks and boulders. I, for one, would probably much rather have something between my butt (and the bottom of the fuselage) and those rocks - even if - it didn't remain there very long. 

[mooniac15u]

Go do a study of the NTSB accident data base. They're there. In aviation, the terms "ALWAYS" and "NEVER" probably shouldn't be used very often. There are USUALLY examples where the contrary would have been better. For example, historically, most engine failures are as a result of fuel exhaustion. If you've run out of gas, why would you worry about rupturing a tank and starting a fire? Of course the best answer is to not run out of gas. But take the scenario where you're going into a field strewn with large rocks and boulders. I, for one, would probably much rather have something between my butt (and the bottom of the fuselage) and those rocks - even if - it didn't remain there very long. 

 

I'm not an "always" or "never" kind of guy. I do like to run scenarios.

 

I'm not sure I would know what to look for in the NTSB database. The terms "gear up" or "failed to extend gear" are likely to get me lots of results on a different topic. Are there specific cases you have seen where the NTSB commented that the pilot should have gone the other route? Short of that I think I would just be speculating that they should have chosen the other option.

 

As I said, I'm not trying to start a debate. I'm honestly curious what you might have seen.

[jlunseth]

One of the local pilot schools at KFCM used to do Sat. morning WINGS seminars.  One of the most useful, went through all of the possible places to land in the event of an engine failure.  They had flown around KFCM and photographed everything, calculated distances from the field and likelihood that you could make a particular spot.  Have never had to use that training, but since more than half of my takeoffs are from that field, it is good to know, good to have a plan in advance.

[marks]

In my experience landing gear up generally works well.  However the moment you touch down gear up you can't steer at all.  I suppose in some cases being able to steer away from some major hazard would be an advantage.

 

IMO, one of the biggest killers of pilots who lose power shortly after take off, is the death turn back.  One problem is that if you make a simple U turn you would land parallel to the runway on the grass.  So the turn always looks much deeper than anticipated.  Secondly, if the pilot starts the turn immediately upon losing power, the turn will be already tight during the time that the airspeed is being lost.  Lastly, the headwind turns into a tailwind, and a gusty tailwind at the wrong time in a turn can quickly drop the observed airspeed and combine to drop the airplane out of the sky during an accelerated stall.

 

Pulling the prop control back will assist you in gliding a greater distance, but if you plan to land in the woods (and you're hoping the tree topos will lean over and all the skinny braches will bend over together to help cushion the blow) or if you can land in a bushy area, it might be a good idea to push the prop control forward to continue having the prop windmilling at a higher speed as you absorb energy and slow to a stop.  Do your best to land into the wind so that your slowest controllable airspeed will produce an even slower ground speed.

[drmarkflies]

It seems like power loss in any phase of flight except takeoff is highly survivable. They key is to have a plan. Make the critical decisions before you encounter the situation.

Willingness to sacrifice the aircraft seems like a good key to survival.

 

Rod Machado reminds us that the most expensive airplane we will ever fly is the cost of our insurance deductible. I have zero deductible, which means if I keep control of my airplane all the way to the crash site and walk away, I've lost nothing.

[drmarkflies]

What do you guys think is the best configuration for a water ditch?

 

Wheels down, you will nose over, wheels up you will skip like a rock.

 

How about gear partially down and a standard flare? The gear might work like a rudder and not add so much drag that you nose over?

[drmarkflies]

Does anybody know just how many feet it takes to come to a complete stop in a Mooney landing on both dirt and pavement with gear up?

 

At what we think was Vref (77 kts in the long body Mooney) on dry concrete, it took about 110 feet to stop with gear up. I helped get an Ovation back on it wheels and went back to measure the skid. If you stand on the brakes, which I did at CGS to avoid hitting a deer, it took about 350 feet in my M20M. A lot of burning rubber and a tire ripped off the rim, but didn't hurt the airplane (or the deer).

 

So... wheels up is about 1/3 the distance of wheels down on dry concrete. Wheels up would be a bit further on asphalt.

[Rwsavory]

What do you guys think is the best configuration for a water ditch?

 

Wheels down, you will nose over, wheels up you will skip like a rock.

 

How about gear partially down and a standard flare? The gear might work like a rudder and not add so much drag that you nose over?

 

You don't want to leave your gear down if you're going in the drink.  Not exactly skipping like a rock here:  

 

Leave your gear up if you're ditching.

[BorealOne]

Awesome video above. Here's why you don't land gear down:

 

 

If possible, you want to maintain forward momentum over the water for as long as possible in ground effect - you won't run out of runway on the ocean or a big lake - then gently bring the nose up (so as not to climb) until you stall, tail first, into the water at a survivable speed.

[fantom]

Ditching a Mooney, N205MD, Lessons Learned....

 

http://www.equipped.com/196ditch.htm

[Hank]

Definitely gear up in the water. I would not expect to skip much, since the prop (is it still turning?) goes significantly below the bottom of the fuselage.

[Alan Fox]

Great link Fantom