My wife and I are planning to fly cross country in a Cessna 182 to Yellowknife, NWT next month, and I'm doing the preflight planning.

Some of the terrain we'll be flying over is remote boreal forest - mainly sprurce, fir and other conifers interspersed with numerous small lakes and rivers.

One possibility I have to consider is an engine problem that demands a forced landing a considerable distance away from the nearest habitation.

I've put together (with the help of Doug Ritter's site) a medium-sized yet comprehensive set of emergency equipment with the help of which I'm reasonably confident (as much as one can be) that we would be just fine with a stay of up to three or four days in the forest, which is about as long as I can imagine it would take a SAR effort to reach us, even allowing time for poor weather to pass.

One thing I'm undecided about is whether it's a better idea to ditch the plane in a lake (at the edge of the water), or land in the tree-tops. I have a long list of pros and cons to both choices, but I'm interested to hear what others speculate about the subject. Maybe hearing some other informed (and uninformed) opinions will give me some insight.

My wife and I have both undertaken underwater emergency egress training and the aircraft has lifejackets (but not a life raft). Lets assume that I'm competent to perform a by-the-book approach and landing in both cases, but I'm without engine power so I can't perform a low pass to scout the lake shore in advance for debris for instance.

I've read Doug's pages about ditching, including Paul Bertorelli's article where he says Yet other equally authoritative sources suggest that an emergency landing into dense woodland is also eminently survivable, and has the benefit of not requiring me to swim any distance with - or possibly without - emergency gear in tow. It also leaves me the aircraft (whatever shape it's in) as a resource to use. On the other hand landing in the treetops - if they be sufficiently dense - has the potential for stranding the aircraft some distance above the ground, and we are neither equipped nor trained to rescue ourselves from that scenario, even uninjured.

If rescue was near then I think I would probably take the water landing, but in this case I expect a longer period without outside help, and I think that moves the balance towards a dry landing.

I hope that others can throw in some ideas that might help me think this through.

I don't know anything about the area and won't prefer this or that, but considering that you will be flying cross country means you will be flying over more land than water. If I was in your shoes (God forbid), I would put more thoughts on the treetop scenario. If for nothing else, its for the probability of flying over trees most of the time.

My 2¢ anyway.

I'm not a pilot, so keep that in mind as you evaluate my post.

My guess is that the facts on the ground, as it were, will be different every time, and you won't be able to fully decide an issue like this unless you are actually faced with it.

Plan your fuel usage conservatively.

I'm not a pilot, I have not been to Yellowknife, nor do I pretend to have any knowledge of surviving an emergency plane landing. That said, I live near and recreate in the boreal forest. It seems to me there are other options available to you besides treetops and open water in that environment .....peatlands and brushlands. Where I live, and north to the edge of the Arctic, there is a lot of it. Mostly the surface is flat, spongy, and wet, and if there are any trees they are just small stunted tamaracks, or tag alders and swamp willow shrubs.

Walking out would be tough but doable by stepping on the sedge mounds. You would probably not want to try walking out anyway, as your plane would be easily visible from the air, and I would think that the local DNR or SAR would have vehicles that are made to travel in peatbog and muskeg. I know they heve them in this state.

Bug spray/head net or full bugsuit and water filter would be helpful to you.

From what location(s) and general path are you taking, perhaps I can make some recommendations. I am not a pilot but I have been to Yellowknife since my brother's lodge is located 20min flight north of the City. I am also familiar with a few northern Saskatchewan airstrips - Uranium City, Fond du lac, Stony Rapids, Points North, La Ronge. Your Cessna - is it fixed gear or retractable?

You must missed out on the Cross Canada Century Flight (John Lovelace) that finished up a week or so ago in Yellowknife.
http://www.crosscanadaflight.com
http://www.crosscanadaflight.com/press.htm

In fact, you may want to contact John via the website. He has flown across Canada and into Yellowknife several times and would be able to give you first hand advice on your route, terrain, airports, etc. He wears a Tilley so I know he's gotta be a good guy. He knows my brother, see Episode 903 of Wings Over Canada .

I've never been in that forest, but IME tree tops are not homogenous (they look soft until they're not) and at glide speed (80-90 mph) in a Cessna 182, the impact will be substantial and then you continue down uncontrolled until a sudden stop. IMO if you have a choice go for a water entry.

In a thread a few months back the ditching of a ferry pilot who went low fuel en route Hawaii was caught on video presumably by the C-130 that joined on him to assist.

If I have a choice between tree tops and a lake, I'll take the lake every time. FWIW -- $.02 -- from a guy who won't be there...

It's a tough call. High-wing fixed gear aircraft can turn turtle in the water, and although I'm confident my wife and I could exit, I have concerns about collecting and bringing a 20lb bag of emergency gear on the way (other than what I have on my person).

On the other hand, the received wisdom about landing in dense tree tops is that it's a relatively soft landing. Tree canopies are soft and multiple impacts slow you much more gently than would flying the cabin directly into the solid trunk of a tree. Stall speed (and therefore forward speed at impact) is about 55mph. With even a light 10mph headwind, that's reduced to 45mph over the ground. There is also a lot of aircraft structure to absorb energy. Ideally the descent to ground level is broken up by a lot of branches and foliage.

If there is flat ground in range then of course that's my first choice. But I'm interested in thoughts on the survival aspects of being cold, wet and without gear, vs being dry and having the gear but perhaps being somewhat banged up and potentially stuck up a tree.

Are there any SAR rules of thumb like "make sure you're uninjured regardless of what you have to leave behind"? Or "it's worth the risk of a broken arm to secure clean water, shelter, fire"? Maybe somebody here knows!

In my experience, which is not great, I am always keeping an eye open for potential emergency landing spots.

Your glide ratio should be about 1:1000. If you are cruising at 5,000ft (above the land), you have a 5 mile radius to set it down in. That allows for some roads although most roads in the mountainous terrain are useless for landing purposes. Open fields of weeds or farmland (landing in a plowed field is best for setting down parallel to the rows, not across the plowed rows).

Setting down on water requires a last minute abrupt flaring, so the plane actually stalls just above the water and drops onto the surface. An abrupt stopping will be felt as soon as the landing gear touches water (on a Cessna 182, keep the landing gear UP). As soon as the aircraft stops, release all restraing belts and open the doors to get out of the airframe. Most aircraft will sink up to the wings and will then float (IF the Wings are intact). The survivors can then either hang onto the wings or possibly climb on top of the wings until help arrives.
You will will find an excellent recitation of a water landing with wheels down in Ted Lawson's "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo".

Setting down on tree tops are normally a "No Other Options Available Manuever" since the decelleration is very rapid while the tree limbs are ripping off your wings, breaking open your wing tanks normally and spreading that fuel around. If you mis-guessed, then you may also strike a tree trunk head on with the fuselage (Usually Game Over). Sometimes the tail wings will catch a branch and the aircraft is then suspended above the forest floor and the occupants will then wait for rescue. Sometime the fuselage clears the branches and then lands nose first on the forest floor (not usually a good outcome). Sometimes the aircraft clears the branches and lands on the forest floor lengthwise (best usual possible outcome) and the occupants can get out and tend to their injuries while awaiting rescue.

Making an approach to any Emergency Landing Sight requires paying strict attention to the location of all highline wires in the area. The VFR chart and your eyeballs are the solution. It does no good to have a perfect approach to a plowed field if you get hamstrung by that darn highline between you and your emergency landing location.

Not exactly... Not sure where this information comes from, perhaps from that book? but in any case... A ditching is conducted in essentially the exactly same manner as a normal landing. No "abrupt flare," flare as normal unless the water is perfectly smooth, and you never want to stall the aircraft as height above water is difficult or impossible to judge. A stall will drop the nose and guarantee the aircraft will flip, which is not ideal. If the water is perfectly smooth like glass, you have to simply set up with a nose up attitude and fly it onto the water, no flare.

Unless it is a rare 182RG, the gear is fixed. If it were retractable, that is good advice.

Care should be taken to release restraints only after you have opened the door and/or have a hand on something else so as to maintain situational awareness. In a high wing aircraft such as a Cessna 182, you are almost certainly going to have to wait for water to enter to equalize the pressure in order to open the door unless you are small enough to be able to squeeze out the side windows (or windshield if it caved in).

Most single engine aircraft aircraft sink like a rock. Low wing aircraft tend to do better in this regard, especially if you climb onto the tail to counterbalance the engine weight. Twins do much better in general, being both low wing for the most part and with the CG more centered with the engines on the wing.

Relying on information from WWII may not always be the best idea for today's pilots. More information on ditching techniques can be found at: http://www.equipped.org/ditch.htm

Somehow I suspect both highline wires and ploughed fields are both in short supply in the North West Territories!

I am informed and have been formally trained by those who conduct underwater egress training that to "release all restraing belts and open the doors" is actually entirely the wrong thing to do. You should open the door before impact, wait until you can open the door fully in the water (you may be upside down, submersed, and holding your breath, and in the dark, by this point). You should take hold of the door frame (as you will have practiced many times, with your eyes shut) finding it by reference to the position of your left (or right) knee or shoulder. Take firm hold of the door frame with one hand and only then release your safety belt or harness with the other and pull yourself immediately towards and through the door. Never release yourself into the cabin until you have a firm hold on the airframe and understand where your are trying to get to in relation to that hold. Otherwise you risk spinning around and becoming disoriented. People drown because they mistakenly swim away from the exit.

A Cessna 182 has a fixed undercarriage, so I can't leave it in the 'up' position ... and unlike some low-wing aircraft, typically they don't float, they sink as soon as the cabin fills with water which is usually before you can open the door. Hence my concerns about escaping with equipment.

Having the wings tear off is not a bad idea, in a forced landing. It absorbs a lot of energy and leaves the fuel tanks far behind you. My aircraft is old enough to have rubber fuel bladders - they're extremely unlikely to rupture.

I'm reasonably confident in my knowledge and training in how to carry out both kinds of forced landings to the optimum, it's what happens next that I'm interested in!

EDIT: I see Doug beat me to some of that...

IRT a water landing, Actually Doug, you have explained the procedure much better than I was able to, Thank You.

I am not that familiar with the 182, hence I was thinking it had retractable landing gear like the 206. I stand corrected.

I am not recommending Ted Lawson's account for any purpose other than it's description of the force encountered when the landing gear comes into contact with a watery surface.

The biggest problem IRT to a water landing is to keep the aircraft from flipping or cartwheeling. Getting out of the aircraft aft coming to a stop is the next major problem.

Well, the 206 is also fixed gear, no retract option.

yes, every ditching survivor i have spoken with comments on their shortest landing ever. You will stop RIGHT NOW!

There is nothing in the data to suggest that flipping oir cartwheeling is a huge problem, nor, given the very high success rates, that even if it did, it has much impact on survival rates. To be avoided if at all possible, for sure, but not to be feared as certain death. Virtually every survivor i have spoken with, whether they flipped or not (and most did not), had no prior egress training and they still do very well. Pilots need to understand that as off-airport forced landings go, a ditching under control is one of the safest you can execute. Having a positive frame of mind helps.

It's the sudden stop that kills you.

Trouble with the treetops is that the aircraft probably won't stay there - especially in pine forest where the tops are pointy and well spaced. It will free fall some distance and then stop suddenly. If the trees are short, it won't be a long fall. If it's mature forest, it'll be a long fall.

I'd pick the water. (says the PP-SEL and former Glider Flight Instructor)

I've seen a glider landed in treetops (pilot with head up his you-know-where ran out of altitude on downwind leg) and the aircraft stayed there. Old deciduous trees in Virginia. Pilot shinnied down the tree. Glider was retrieved with a huge crane with nearly no damage (but glider speeds are very slow).

I'm no expert, but three things occur to me. First is, it's dependent on the circumstances. If you're landing at the airport with the fire and rescue equipment ready, it's better to arrive uninjured even if that means you'll be bare naked. If you're landing in the Antarctic and it's going to be months before you are rescued, risking relatively minor injury to improve your chances of recovering your gear might be the thing to do.

The second thing that occurs to me is that it's darn hard to figure out whether the injury you're going to get is minor or fatal. Better, I would think, in general, to prioritize minimizing the chance of injury over any considerations of equipment.

Finally, if you're uninjured, you're better equipped to recover your gear.

This is why I wear a flotation vest for over-water flights. Flotation, radio, GPS, PLB, knife, flashlight ... et al and I can swim while wearing it. The peace of mind is well worth the expense.

Following this thread, I have been wondering - What are the success rates for treetop vs. water landings? Surely there must be some decent statistics out there somewhere....

In the absence of data, let me provide an anecdote. in 1954, a Navy antisub plane (Grumman Guardian) experienced engine trouble near Santa Rosa Island (California). The pilot put the plane in the water about 300 yards off a each on the southern shore of the island. All three of the crew exited the plane safely, made it to the island, and where home in time for dinner. The largely intact plane now makes for a very interesting dive.

I checked the Canadian Transportation Safety board website but did not find any studies that split out tree vs water landings. However this report shows some interesting stats for sea plane accidents and could probably be extrapolated for small wheeled aircraft as well. I posted some info but the above link provides much more details.

The Transportation Safety Board (TSB) recently completed an analysis of seaplane accidents that occurred in Canada over the 15-year period from 1976 through 1990. During that period, there were 1,432 such accidents; and 452 people died in 234 of these accidents.

The TSB examined these 1,432 accidents in order to identify underlying safety deficiencies in seaplane operations. Using this database, the Board recently completed a safety study addressing shortcomings in piloting skills, abilities and knowledge.3 This second study deals with occupant survivability in seaplane accidents.

Of the 234 fatal accidents examined, 96 (41%) occurred during the take-off phase, and 87 (37%) occurred during the approach and landing phase.4 In 48% (103) of the 216 fatal accidents where the accident site was described fully in the occurrence records, the aircraft terminated in the water. Less than 10% of the 276 occupants involved in these 103 accidents escaped unhampered from these aircraft.

The circumstances surrounding each of the fatalities were examined to determine the location of the deaths. The fatalities occurred predominantly within the confines of the aircraft cabin.

Of the 168 occupants (including pilots and passengers) who died in the 103 accidents known to have terminated in the water, 118 (70%) were located inside the aircraft, 37 (22%) were located outside the aircraft, and 3 (2%) were found onshore.5 Half of the occupants drowned while trapped in the confines of the cabin. Of the 63 pilots who died, 49 (78%) were located inside the aircraft, 10 (16%) were located outside the aircraft, and one (2%) was found onshore.6

Table 1 indicates that less than 10% of the 276 occupants escaped unhampered from the aircraft cabin.

Table 1 - Occupant Egress (276 occupants)
Number Percentage
Escaped unhampered 23 8
Escaped with difficulty 72 26
Did not escape 121 44
Undetermined 44 16
No information recorded 16 6

The aircraft fuselage often buckled during impact, bending doors and door-opening mechanisms. Aircraft sometimes flipped upside-down, making it difficult to maintain situational awareness. The flaps, which are at least partially lowered on most aircraft during take-offs and landings, may have prevented egress through outward-opening exits. Disoriented occupants may have panicked as icy cold water rushed into the cabin in the seconds following impact. Some of the aircraft involved in water-impact accidents did not have a rear exit, making evacuation for the rear-seat passengers difficult. In these cases, the only egress route for passengers would have been to crawl over the front seats and through the crew door(s). Actuating a simple door-opening mechanism can become an almost impossible task in cold dark water when the aircraft cabin is vertical or upside-down. This may be compounded by the fact that the opening mechanism of some doors is not so simple (with more than one handle or lever to actuate) and few are standard.

Recognizing the difficulties of emergency egress from seaplanes in the water, following a fatal DHC-2 Beaver accident, the TSB recommended in 1992 that "the Department of Transport require that the exits of DHC-2 aircraft be marked clearly."7 In response, Transport Canada (TC) issued an Airworthiness Directive requiring the inspection and rectification of door placards.

A 1988 study conducted by the Canadian Aviation Safety Board (CASB)8 cited eight occurrences in which the occupants exited the aircraft successfully but drowned attempting to swim to shore. The report found evidence that "occupants sometimes drown while attempting to reach life jackets stowed in the rear of the cabin or under seats. Often the aircraft became inverted in the water, suspended by the floats. The occupants then swam to the surface whereupon one would dive back to the aircraft to retrieve the life jackets."

Whatever you decide to do I would also suggest you check out a Ribz Vest pak. No connection with the company !
Pack a minimum amount of gear in the vest and wear it! All the survival gear in the world will not help if it is in the back of the plane and you
lose it.

I love my Ribz pack! The newest version is a bit better than the older/original, though.

Sounds like someone is reading the first 2 chapters of "Hatchet."

I'd take water, but if you're fixed gear, you might be SOL either way, and a meadow preferable.

Water: snag the gear and flip, face first at 80mph, into the water.
Trees: Hit a tree face first at 80. Ever see a car crash into a tree? Tree usually wins.

Thanks for the interesting reference. Good discussion of factors like fuselage failure that definitely complicate the situation.

For reasons stated, it's more like 45mph. That's still not great if it's the trunk of a tree that takes the first impact - but that particular outcome should be avoidable either way.

Maybe car drivers should try harder to hit the tops of the trees instead of the bottoms.

The problem I have with treetops is that the plane won't stay there. Even if you do everything perfectly, once you touch that first treetop you are no longer in control of where or how fast you stop. The idea that you can dodge a tree trunk once you are low, slow and at much reduced option for choosing what you will impact is IMO very optimistic. You have no control of branches coming through the front windshield before you get close to the ground. There are far too many unknowns.

Landing on a lake the number of unknowns are limited. You know you'll get wet and cold, things you can plan to deal with. If you have the skill to dodge a tree, you should be able to put the aircraft close enough to the beach that it will be a resource after you escape wet but intact. Being intact is a very good start to being rescued. That and a PLB so the search effort is very short should make the being wet part not so bad. Good luck.

I guess that's a decent summary. Thanks.

Somewhat related to this thread. A small aircraft went down yesterday into some trees. One person died and 3 others have injuries. The area in which the plane crashed is heavily forested and the SAR team had to parachute in and use chainsaws to get to the plane crash survivors.

According to video in the above link, although the plane went into the trees, it was mostly intact. And as you can see in the picture in the link, had the pilot been able to keep airborne for a few more minutes, he could of probably set the plane down into the field where the rescue choppers eventually landed.

What is puzzling about this crash though is why was the pilot so off course to the north instead of flying west, especially in idea weather and with so many visual and distinct landmarks in the area. (I know that area very well.) It will be interesting to see the TSB report when it comes out.


Edit: Another link with more info.

it's worth pointing out that this was a twin Comanche - I.e. had two engines. Twin engined aircraft have significantly higher stall speeds than singles. This is mainly a matter of certification requirements for single engined aircraft, the details of which probably aren't of interest here, but the higher stall speed means a significantly increased amount of energy to be dissipated on impact, and therefore a much higher risk of injury.

This is of course in theory mitigated by the lower risk of a forced landing due to having a second power plant. All bets are off however if both engines quit on you.

it's also possible that the impact was worse than it needed to be because a forced landing in that aircraft may not have been something the pilot had practiced or considered. After all, it had two engines.

I don't have any statistics but my understanding is that per flight hour, accidents in twins are rarer than in singles but involve a higher chance of a fatality.

Jarvis,

You are very wise to plan ahead. The biggest problem most people have in an emergency is not having thought about it ahead of time. Good on you.

Having spent some time in the area you are going, as well as having spent a lot of time in a 182, I will have to agree with others that it will depend on the situation at the time. Lots of responders have talked about the water landing (and Doug gave you an excellent link here) so that is covered. Just don't try to read too much into the water landing fatality data. Sea planes (almost all of them on floats) have much higher stresses because of the long struts and are more prone to structural damage than the land version of the same aircraft.

In defense of the tree landing (and again it will be a decision made on the spot) it can be made without as much risk as some have suggested. Although I have not had to make one, I am quite familiar with a number of them. Please note these are intentional landings in the tree tops, not crashes in the trees. I have been at the sight of 3 of them and several where the aircraft was stalled and spun into the trees. The later were universally bad. In the other three (and two more where I know the pilot personally -my dad) there were only 2 serious injuries out of 22 souls on board. (One was a B17, at night. Everyone was uninjured.) The key is to do a soft field landing in the tops of the trees. The aircraft will usually (in a pine forest) come to rest at or near the ground.

Each type has it's own risks, and you must evaluate (quickly) the problems in the place you need to land. Just don't give up on the tree tops and land in the middle of a class V rapid!

Off airport - unknown surface (particularly in that part of the NWT) is often tundra or marsh with lots of pot holes. Almost certain flip and a more rigid surface to bounce on. Moderate possibility of injury.

Water - smooth lake or river - Probable loss of equipment in aircraft and a COLD time with no extra clothing to replace your wet stuff. (Why do you think the Coasties fly so often in dry suits?) High likelyhood of little or no injury.


Tree tops - Certain damage to aircraft but all equipment and the materials available after everything stops. No soaking. Moderate probability of injuries.


Respectfully,

Jerry

p.s. Twins have almost exactly twice the number of engine failures as singles.

I remember watching a program on tv, unfortunately not which specific program, where they tested opening the door of a car that was sinking by both waiting until the pressure equilized and trying to open it as soon as possible after entering the water (A pool in this case).

And I want to remember they had a very difficult time in opening the door of the car while it was still sinking, even though it was filled with water, until it touched down on the bottom. As the internal/external pressure was constantly changing as the car sunk until it touched down on the bottom.

Therfore it was concluded that attempting to open the door as soon as posible, before the car had a chance to truly sink and take on water, was the way to go. Of course, as soon as the door was open the car sunk quite quickly.

Has any testing been done in this fashion on aircraft, or anyone had experience where waiting for the pressure to equilize prior to attempting egress proving to be much more difficult than previously thought?

There are more reasons to fly than just going from A to B in the most efficient and straight line posible. I know nothing about that area, but maybe they were sightseeing a bit before heading over to their destination.

I know I've flown indirect paths because I wanted to look at something while enroute to somewhere, that's the beuty with general aviation you can go and see what you want (for the most part).

And not to throw dirt on this sad situation, but just being a pilot does not automatically make one truly proficient in navigation. I have no idea if that's at all the case in this instance, but just thought it a valid point. People can get lost even with fantastic reference points, maps, knowledge, and skills to put it all to use if the right stress factors are introduced.

I believe the show in question was Mythbusters.

I'm happy to report making it to Yellowknife with no adverse occurrences, so far.