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.