It would make any water in a taildragger landing hugely dangerous.
The chap who tried to waterski a tricycle aircraft on the Derwent didn’t fare much better.
I heard of someone who deep-stalled a Long-EZ and survived pancaking onto the sea from altitude. Perhaps ballooning and stalling in a tail-down position could prevent you from flipping.
Taking a ditching course the consensus there was that a non retractable will most likely flip.
There should be enough ditchings throughout history that we should know what happens both to retractables and non-retractables…
The Swedish CAA published a very comprehensive set of flight safety publications some years ago. Regarding ditchings they write that experience shows that
- using the wheel brakes considerably reduces the risk of a flip – they recommend setting the parking brake.
- if the aircraft has retractable gear and the POH doesn’t say anything about ditchings, extend the gear (and set the parking brake).
- the tail should not contact the water first. This could lead to the tail being sucked down, a pitch up followed by a stall and hard landing.
- if the aircraft has retractable gear and the POH doesn’t say anything about ditchings, extend the gear (and set the parking brake).
That one is quite interesting. I wonder what the logic is.
I am very sensitive to the thread and am not in any way criticising the pilot or the outcome. It was simply because the video exists and there are few that show so well what happens in these circumstances.
The analogy with float planes is interesting. I didnt think the case was quite so open and shut; having followed the debate before amoung float plane pilots that doesnt seem to be the concensus. In any event the tipping moment is obviously somewhat different.
I think in a tail dragger it is going to be pretty difficult to stop pitch polling. I was more minded that in deeper water it would pitch pole into the water rather than effectively hit the sand just below the surface with some force, but I very much take the point that other factors may make the outcome less good. It is interesting to conject.
There are quite a few things going on. Landing on any beach with surf and actually landing in the surf (in slightly deeper water) is probably a poor idea so if you go deeper you may want to be beyond the break line – and then of course you make it that much more difficult for people to reach you. Across the surf and you might well be landing with a cross wind – but even that isnt guaranteed.
There is a lot going on and heavens knows almost impossible to second guess all the options. The video was very interesting however, if you will forgive the comment taken out of context with the thread which simply deserves a job well done to the pilot in very difficult circumstances which in context is all I have to say.
On the face of it, extending the gear, locking the brakes and not landing tail first seems counter intuitive.
I would be interested to see a link to any publications which provide evidence for this.
That one is quite interesting. I wonder what the logic is.
I would guess that the logic is that with extended gear and locked wheels the aircraft will skid on the water surface for a while so when it finally sinks in the speed will be lower. But I’m speculating.
I find that really hard to believe… maybe it is right on mirror-smooth water, like that famous video of the Harvards water-skiing on the totally smooth lake. It’s on Youtube somewhere.
Donkeys years ago Rod Taylor made a film called “Family Flight” in which his “son” makes (what was quite obviously a genuine filmed ditching alongside an American naval ship, possibly a carrier I can’t remember for sure) but as I recall, the “pilot” in the film elects to take a ditching with no gear rather than a carrier landing with no gear. The aircraft was a Navion I think, and I seem to recall that not only was the ditching done with the gear up, but also was very nose up and tail low. It looked very successful! No flip over at all.
I would love to find the relevant clip but have had no joy.
In the course they told you that you should not put the gear down and to land slightly tail low almost flat. For high wing as per POH for flaps. Every ditching that has been filmed shows a slightly tail low gear up ditching where there was a good outcome. Ive seen film of a B29 ditch, multiple single seat WWII fighters, even the Hudson ditching all showed tail low without gear extension. So I question putting the gear out for a ditching. Another factor to consider is the prop. If its turning and if it digs in will it help cause a nose over?
Taking a ditching course the consensus there was that a non retractable will most likely flip
If it does, it doesn’t seem to affect the outcome: the egress rate is over 90% for ditchings.
http://www.equipped.com/ditchingmyths.htm
Float planes with the gear down are more likely to flip because the front wheel is right at the front of the float, and a float plane is far far higher than a normal wheeled aircraft (much higher CofG). The photo sequences I’ve seen of a couple of tailwheel aircraft ditching in deep water (I think it was a C180) show the nose “dives in” after landing then bobs back up.
Looking for ditching experiences, the few write-ups I’ve found from people who have suffered one is that most of the time fixed gear aircraft were upright after the ditching.
A friend of mine ditched a Twin Comanche (and no, it didn’t run out of fuel – there was still fuel in it after it had spent 3 months on the bottom of the Irish Sea) did it with the gear up and was uninjured.
