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.