Jump to content

Survivability of GA Crashes


Recommended Posts

The problem is you can do everything right , and still come up short.....The cage is not really more effective than a standard monocoque , I have seen many planes where the passengers died from the impact , and the passenger compartment survived intact , The biggest cause of death from otherwise survivable accidents is head trauma from the head hitting the dash ...If you fly without a three point , you are nuts.....They are cheap and easy to install on the Mooneys , and will save your life.....I lost a friend who cartwheeled a Baron on landing......He died from head trauma ...with shoulder harnesses he would have walked away......Every plane I have owned in the last 10 years has had them , or I installed them.....As stated earlier , FLY THE PLANE..... Steeper approaches to a point on the runway past the numbers when able will increase survivability.......and when you practice best glide pull the mixture that will be your true descent rate......A lot steeper than flight Idle....

Alan -- I saw and used the 3 way belt in your Bonanza. I didn't know they could be retrofitted in a Mooney. Who sells them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not getting the safety belt cutter thing...So when you are down you don't feel you will remember how to unlatch your belt or your co-pilots belt?...and you think it will be easier/quicker to find your handy belt cutter, get it on belt, cut belt and then egress? I do not agree.

I am just going to think about landing the plane in the best spot and getting my crew and I the hell out the already popped door. If there is fire...I am NOT going to hunt up and use an extinguisher...I am getting the F&^% out of the plane as fast as I can.

Not meaning to be critical...Any and all prior planning and equipment is O.K. by me, but just charting a different course.

 

I used to think the same way - how hard can it be to unlatch a belt, find the door and bolt?

 

Given that I was on floats in those days, I thought it wise to take underwater egress training, and did a course in a simulator which dunks you suddenly in the water in the dark in an unusual attitude.

 

Guess what I learned? Getting out ain't as easy as all that. 

 

The stats speak for themselves - too often, the pilot survives the crash, but then dies in the fire or drowns in the water because they were either incapacitated (head injury secondary to impact, solution: shoulder harness or airbags); couldn't orient themselves for a rapid exit (solution: egress training) or were trapped when the seat belts jammed or the primary exit was impeded. 

 

When on floats, I used to carry a white-water style rescue knife (an NRS Pilot knife, in fact) that was zip-tied to a bulkhead I could reach while seat-belted at the controls. It would make short work of seat-belt or a plexi window.  I don't currently do that in my Mooney, but having read this thread, I'm going to see what I can rig up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those with fear of plastic windows....

Our windows are acrylic. They scratch and shatter (large sharp pieces) relatively easily. A crack will propagate pretty well. They are not anywhere as tough as polycarbonate.

The hammer should be a pretty effective tool. First live through the first phase. Fly far into....

Best regards,

-a-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris , the Beech actually has 4 point harnesses , One good thing Beech and Mooney share is a lot of STCs on our airframe.....On both my Mooneys I installed three points which were Amsafe three point harnesses , that used the original seat mounts , and a basic clamp and spacer that hook up to the cage .....Aircraft Spruce sells the clamp/spacer kits for about 30 to 40 dollars a pair.......Me and My IA decided a long time ago , that if it saves my life , I could deal with the feds If I ever got in an accident......It is well known that they have not been enforcing to the letter of the law as far as safety upgrades are concerned ..... If you don't have the three points , I think I have one set left....I bought about 8 of them and sold them all (except 1 set) .... I was saving it knowing this would not be my last Mooney....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those with fear of plastic windows....

Our windows are acrylic. They scratch and shatter (large sharp pieces) relatively easily. A crack will propagate pretty well. They are not anywhere as tough as polycarbonate.

The hammer should be a pretty effective tool. Fist live through the first phase. Fly far into....

Best regards,

-a-

 

A few years ago a friend with an M20C was having his cloudy windows replaced.  So he let me as an experiment try to punch through his window with an egress hammer.  It worked so easily I was surprised.  It is a nonissue if you have an egress hammer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris , the Beech actually has 4 point harnesses , One good thing Beech and Mooney share is a lot of STCs on our airframe.....On both my Mooneys I installed three points which were Amsafe three point harnesses , that used the original seat mounts , and a basic clamp and spacer that hook up to the cage .....Aircraft Spruce sells the clamp/spacer kits for about 30 to 40 dollars a pair.......Me and My IA decided a long time ago , that if it saves my life , I could deal with the feds If I ever got in an accident......It is well known that they have not been enforcing to the letter of the law as far as safety upgrades are concerned ..... If you don't have the three points , I think I have one set left....I bought about 8 of them and sold them all (except 1 set) .... I was saving it knowing this would not be my last Mooney....

Alan - I certainly would be interested if I can get my IA to do it. Let me call him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We added three points to our F model. I think we ordered them from Spruce and they were a snap to install. I added the same to my 1955 Chevy and 1971 truck. I am not sure why anyone wouldn't do this. If anything, this is what I would do first! 

 

As for the hammer - my plan has always been to pivot and kick out the window if needed. This is part of my brief to passengers too. Erik - based on your experience, is that reasonable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always have four things with me/until I go to bed. My Watch (on my left wrist); My cell (in my left pocket); My wallet (in my right pocket); my one hand opening knife (clipped inside my right pocket). It is ALWAYS there if I need it. I rarely do...I will be landing gear-up in the water. I hear ya, but I will be pulling my knife vs. fumbling for a belt cutter in that panic driven scenario...In that perfect storm 99% are dead (flipped plane/stuck buckle)...

I still think that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what the reasonable life of our factory 'lowest bidder' seat-belts are, but I've been told by solid sources the are a lot of 35+ year old planes relying on worn out webbing. Worth a check.

When unlatching the passenger door be sure to wedge something into it so it doesn't close tight upon impact.

Almost always gear up, master and fuel off, mixture out, eyes wide open, and keep flying her!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fire, whether in flight or post crash is the biggest concern. One of the weaknesses in the Mooney design in my opinion is that lack of a fuselage skin between cabin upholstery and the inner most rib of the fuel tank.

I would be concerned that in a crash landing the fuel tank ruptures spilling or spraying fuel into the cabin.

Clarence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In '84 when I bought my first Mooney, it had an engine problem that required me to dead stick into a remote dirt strip. The next day I went out, filled the engine full of oil and ran it up for 20 minutes (the length of the flight home) It used 4 QTs, So I figured I could make it home. I filled it back up and took to the sky.

 

Realizing there was a distinct possibility of disaster I brought along a full face motorcycle helmet. I figured the military might know something about crashing.

 

Oh, to be young (26) and foolish again!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best way that I know of to make a successful emergency landing in a single is to avoid the need. There is an old saying "A superior pilot uses his superior judgment to avoid having to demonstrate his superior skills." In other words, proper and timely maintenance, proper preflight planning (ie adequate fuel, favorable wx conditions, suitable terrain etc) and good old fashioned common sense will go a very long way to keep you from getting into trouble in the first place. That being said, there will always be a certain level of risk in aviation. There is no such thing as a perfectly reliable engine.

If there is a secret to making a successful emergency landing in a single it would be to simply maintain control and keep flying the airplane until everything comes to a stop. The FAA mandates that all certified single engine aircraft have a stalling speed no greater than 61 knots. Many of the singles we fly have stall speeds in the 40 to 50 knot range. At those speeds, as long as you can keep from hitting anything head-on you're going to have a good chance of walking away from it.

The survivability of a crash is a function of how quickly the kinetic energy is dissipated. That implies slower is better than faster AND a flatter angle is better than a steeper angle. If you double the speed you've got four times the amount of energy to dissipate. ANY extra speed on touchdown magnifies the amount of energy that will need to be dissipated. It's also a function of time so the flatter an angle you have at touchdown the better. IMHO, you want to touchdown at the lowest controllable airspeed at the flattest possible angle.

 

Now, for those of you who aspire to fly twins someday, there is no such stall speed requirement for the light twins we fly. A few multi-engine aircraft are light enough to have stall speeds less than 61 knots, but many aircraft designers take advantage of higher wing loadings to increase a light twin’s performance. This results in twins with stall speeds significantly higher than the equivalent single engine airplane. Take the Beech A36 Bonanza and the Baron 58. Essentially, they are single and multi-engine versions of the same airframe, with more or less comparable performance and capabilities. The Bonanza has a stall speed of 59 knots and the Baron, a stall speed of 73 knots. Remember what I said about speed - If you double the stall speed, you multiply the kinetic energy four times. Also remember that the survivability of a crash is a function of how quickly the kinetic energy is dissipated. In the event of an off field landing in a twin, you could easily have nearly twice the kinetic energy to dissipate. If you’re lucky you’ll have a flat smooth surface, but throw in some rocks, trees, etc. and you quickly see why survivability in an off field landing in a twin could be problematic.

As far as the willingness to sacrifice the airplane. That is important. I’ve always assumed that the moment you lose your engine, the title immediately transfers to your insurance company. Honestly, that’s the only way to approach it. I had a good friend and highly experienced ATP/A&P lose his life in a homebuilt accident. He had an engine failure as he was approaching the airport and he overflew several suitable fields in an attempt to get the airplane back to the airport. He attempted to stretch his glide and ended up stalling and spinning in. Putting that airplane into one of those fields would have probably resulted in a damaged airplane, but he would also have been around to rebuild it or, if necessary, replace it.

In my mind, this brings up one of the big problems that I have with homebuilts (or any airplane - like our pet Mooneys - for that matter that we may have owned and showered with time, attention and money over a period of many years.) - although the construction may be impeccable and in all aspects the equivalent or better than any certified airplane out there, how many owner/builder/pilots would be able to overcome the inevitable physiological pressure to "save" the plane come hell or high water that cost my friend his life? After all, in addition to the $$$ involved, you've got a few thousand hours and years of labor invested as well. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in the case of the San Diego crash and Mike's crash, the airbag seat belts would have gone a long way to saving lives in those cases. The FAA needs to fast track certification and Richard's company making them need to find ways to make them more affordable if possible without compromising performance.

 

I also wonder if more time might be spent training for turning in a glide. The common wisdom is always, if you have an engine failure on take off, just land straight ahead with perhaps small changes in heading. As we can see from these two crashes and a quick study of a whole lot of GA airports, straight ahead leaves terrible options where as there are sometimes great places to land beyond 90 degrees of heading change.

 

I'm not saying that we should train for the "impossible" turn and always try to get back to the runway, I'm saying that turning to a more suitable crash site should be an option. It is really pretty easy to turn while gliding and not stall and spin. Of course this is completely altitude dependent. Dead motor at 100' there isn't much option and you will be going more or less straight ahead, but at 3,4, or 500'? A 90 degree turn might put you in a very much more favorable position. I think about this because the straight ahead options at my home field are crap for both of the commonly used runways.

 

Just an idea.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just thought of something else. 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? If we had a better idea of that distance, it might help us make better choices in landing. As it is now, perhaps some pilots faced with an off field landing might be passing up suitable places to scrape it in attempts to make it to larger areas.

 

Maybe some non profit safety foundation could get some money together, buy up some of these unairworthy airplanes that are headed to the scrap heap, but that still fly, land them wheels up on purpose and publish the results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many times I've heard someone on the radio stating "Cessna XXXXX over the field at 3,500 feet simulated engine out emergency".

I think a better way to practice is to get 10 miles from the airport and an altitude you know you can glide to the airport from, pull the throttle to idle and see how you can get yourself set up and land from there. I bet it would be an eye opening experience. Doing this from directly over the field will give you some experience but nothing like judging distances from further out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just thought of something else. 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? If we had a better idea of that distance, it might help us make better choices in landing. As it is now, perhaps some pilots faced with an off field landing might be passing up suitable places to scrape it in attempts to make it to larger areas.

 

Maybe some non profit safety foundation could get some money together, buy up some of these unairworthy airplanes that are headed to the scrap heap, but that still fly, land them wheels up on purpose and publish the results.

R U Serious?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the concern is if the buckle doesn't release after 10G of force. 

 

Refining the discussion - what to do on a take off engine failure after selecting a best landing sight and reaching target airspeed?

Master/Mixture/Fuel Off/Door open. Anything else to do?

Do these steps really help reduce the chance of a post crash fire?

Tighten your belts uncomfortable tight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many times I've heard someone on the radio stating "Cessna XXXXX over the field at 3,500 feet simulated engine out emergency".

I think a better way to practice is to get 10 miles from the airport and an altitude you know you can glide to the airport from, pull the throttle to idle and see how you can get yourself set up and land from there. I bet it would be an eye opening experience. Doing this from directly over the field will give you some experience but nothing like judging distances from further out.

 

During my last BFR my CFI had me practice an instrument departure then at about 10 mi out he pulled my engine for a simulated IFR engine out.  That was exciting.  The trick to make it work was to head straight to the FAF of the approach plat along the route you just departed. This works in a plane that can out climb its glide path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in 2004 I lost power in hard IFR with a fire in the engine about five minutes after takeoff.  The mechanic failed to connect the fuel pressure guage after his work which sprayed fuel into the engine and the fire started after the exhaust manifold got hot enough. The fire burned away the vacuum hoses but I still had the pitot static system and the turn coordinator.  Because I was over Nantucket Sound I was forced to make a U turn and take a tailwind.  I decided that at 400 ft I would turn into the wind (another U turn) no matter what.  (Ceiling was 300ft.)  When I started to pop out there was a golf course at angles to me and I turned into the wind and lined up with a fairway.  The result was a makeshift runway 300 ft long.  I landed gear up and the result was that the prop took chunks of earth and began to bend backward and helped absorb energy and slowed the plane down to a stopping distance of less than 200 ft.  My flaps were down and they alternately scraped the grass and ultimately also helped slow the airplane.  (This was my Beech Sierra, I don't think Mooney flaps will reach the ground given the dihedral and shortness of flaps.)  I went through the top of a Maple tree that just bent over with me seconds before landing and I'm glad my gear was up for that.  Given the seconds involved with the Maple I never opened the door, but the Sierra has three full sized doors.  Lastly, the Sierra has two steps and each grabbed the ground and dragged the whole way helping to stop the plane and kept the nose going straight ahead like two anchors thrown off the back of a boat.  -  The point is, I am very glad I landed gear up.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I think a key to survival is to keep thinking, and flying the airplane, and keep thinking. I have been in a few emergencies, and it is amazing how some relatively experienced pilots shut down mentally. All of the good thoughts and plans made on forums like this one, aren't worth much if you quit thinking under stress of an actual emergency. That's why we practice, and try to keep it simple. And whatever you are faced with, no matter how dire, keep thinking and working to solve the problem, make the best of it, and survive. Don't quit thinking!

Just my 2 cents.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.