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...