It’s easy to imagine what we might have done….
When it happened to me, at 50’ on takeoff, some muscle memory / training / good luck caused me to push the stick mightily forward. I don’t know how long it was after the engine stopped that I did that, but it was long enough for the stall warner to get going. The remaining runway filled the windscreen in the steepest angle I’ve ever imagined and despite the stall warner still blaring there was enough energy to round out to a normal if firm landing, and even roll out to the end of the tarmac.
The moment the wheels touched, the engine started again! Close the throttle!
So watching this pilot, engine failure over the sea, just enough glide range, headland obstructing the beach, complex aircraft, what he pulled off is to me little short of miraculous. Perhaps not quite a ‘Sully’, but getting there. Well done that pilot!
Well, anything much longer than this landing could have seriously endangered the people on the beach and as it has been said before: Any ‘landing’ you can walk away from…
I never was in such a situation and don’t dare to comment on the decision making, but nonetheless I wonder – why go over the hill instead of curving around?
I imagine it’s hard to go for the open water instead of what you have in sight in front and going at the sea cliff with the wind instead of parallel to it is also much harder, but there would have been speed reserves left.
Also, I feel it’s a bit of pull where he should have pushed to gain speed again and the height over the hill could have been somewhat reduced. But I admit that’s highly uncomfortable for someone not used to this.
I am convinced that regularily flying glider helps tremendously in staying ahead in such a situation.
Concerning the loss of lift – I imagine that the cliff might have something to do with it, too, unfortunate shear winds below the lip of the hill, combined with too little speed reserve.
Under the circumstances, I guess it could have gone better, but it also could have gone much, much worse.
Very hard to Monday quarterback this accident. The pilot made the beach probably by staying clean (flaps and gear up), hopefully remembering to bring the propeller into coarse which dramatically improves glide, and once he had the landing site ‘made’ extended the landing gear.
We can’t judge whether there was some shear or curl off the ridge which contributed to a loss of energy.
On balance of probabilities the PIC did a nice job selecting a safe landing spot and making a forced landing. I can’t tell if there is a departure causing the yaw, or if intentional. An incipient spin would have been much more dramatic with serious wing drop and uncommanded yaw/roll.
Dan wrote:
controlled… well, I meant that he steered the plane to the spot where he crashed.
A very lucky outcome since the lowering of the gear basically drove the plane into the stall.
I don’t think he even steered it, the initiation of the turn to the left looks like it was caused by the left wing dropping due to a lack of coordination as the aircraft stalled.
Hmm, it doesn’t look like he was soooo close to the tree line.
In theory, shouldn’t he have traded altitude for speed and cross the tree line more closely? Then he would have had more energy for the flare.
At least that would be my game plan in this kind of situation. And then, with the increased speed, I would also leave the gear up and concentrate on a good flare.
Always easy to say from afar though…
controlled… well, I meant that he steered the plane to the spot where he crashed.
A very lucky outcome since the lowering of the gear basically drove the plane into the stall.
FWIW the FAA states: AIRCRAFT CRASHED ON THE BEACH DUE TO ENGINE ISSUES, SHOREMAHM, NY.
Dan wrote:
Nice of you guys calling it a landing… I’d name that nothing but a controlled crash.
Extending the gear on very short finals, with what already looks like a very slow speed, was obviously not the best of ideas….
Not sure I’d call the last few seconds “controlled”….. controlled would have been pushing the nose down to gain energy to allow the aircraft to flare without that stall and drop…. grateful that all survived. Not only that, also grateful the beach was pretty much empty….
A stall from several or several ten meters of altitude might be a very good decision to be able to walk home. And in this case here might have been the only decision that resulted in a survival.
Let’s ignore momentary accelerations and talk about steady state physics:
Similar data is likely available when one flies their aircraft in slow flight with engine off and tend to indicate that pointing the nose to the ground is the only way to smooth things out…also on crashes, I am sure lot of G-x is survivable, especially with long forward stopping distance and motion, otherwise, we won’t be allowed to drive cars, while any excess of G-z is not survivable stopping distance is less than 30cm that separate my back to ground surface
Hitting the ground with -20kts to -30kts (-2000fpm to -3000fpm) during fully developed stall or spin is a bit harsh to my taste, I did read that Cirrus go down at -15kts and it’s not a walk the in the park neither even with lot of crash testing and protection
I have landed few times fully stalled all the way from 1000ft agl, that was with engine running at full power, PA18-150hp in calm winds hanged on it’s propeller, I won’t try that landing without an engine (in my opinion an engine failure in that config at 100ft will result in broken neck)
There were trees in the approach path. The pilot stayed clear of these. That is why he got so slow. He could have done a little bit better, maybe, but it could have gone much worse.
I think extending the gear in that situation was a good decision, maybe even THE decision that led to survival. The pilot stalled the plane right into the ground, the energy was dissipated in a series of actions, not in one single crash. I have seen with my own eyes already more than one accident like this and in every of these the pilot walked away.
To the contrary, I have witnessed an accident where the pilot out of a stall in about 30 meters above ground decided to put the stick forward. The plane accelerated, but no elevator control could be established. Both the pilot and his pax died upon impact and left a crater in the soil of an acre about 100 meters away from the runway.
If the Beech’s pilot would have lowered the nose from the stall he was already in, above or shortly behind those trees, he would have gained a lot of speed, still with the elevator inoperable, and might have dug a big hole into that beach. With his Beech.
A stall from several or several ten meters of altitude might be a very good decision to be able to walk home. And in this case here might have been the only decision that resulted in a survival.
I don’t know whether I would be so right on the spot in such a moment.
I am not sure about Bonanzas, they have reputation of solid gears but I don’t think they are designed to cushion or delay +20G impact?
Arrow and Mooney gears do collapse regularly in normal hard landings or kinks during taxi, these are in 2G-5G ranges
I don’t think think they are strong enough to delay or absorb that much energy on crash landing? the saying that the only thing that gets hurt during a gear up is pride and wallet is likely true even when it’s stalled on the belly 
