Yes, I have taken the full underwater, inverted egress training. It is required for some floatplane pilots in Canada now, and for very good reason. It is invaluable training, and it ended before I wanted it too, I had to ask to do a few more dunks, while the other participants waited poolside for me.
Definitely find the training locally if you can!
http://www.dunkyou.com/egresstrainingoverview
But, all the egress training is not going to do you much good if you botch the landing so badly that you’re hurt or killed. Fly the plane until you can’t any more!
My €0.02 would be
I always do a passenger briefing on the life raft, which I repeat twice.
Having fuel in the tanks is the best defence against ditching, and not having any is probably the most common reason for ditching 
Interesting point in that article about minimum sink rate speed. I was in the position of flying a PFL in IMC the other day, and I adopted normal glide speed, but I was thinking “what’s the point of maximising glide range when what I really want is a soft impact”. Now I know it’s about halfway between normal glide and stall speed.
That, however, assumes you will be in IMC all the way to the surface.
If you descend at the min sink speed, you have
I would say that it will almost never be the case that you are in IMC at a few thousand feet and will still be in IMC at the surface. The latter means fog and fog is almost never that high.
A few years ago I spoke to a UK CAA ex RAF guy who said that in the RAF they were testing fast glide descents in turboprops, the idea being that you had loads of options when you got visual. And you will get splattered just the same at 150kt as at 70kt…. or maybe not quite.
Now, for a ditching, this is less relevant because water will be the same everywhere, but IMHO you want some control, to be able to ditch on the top of a wave (if they are big).
Great post by Pilot_DAR
Rich wrote:
Interesting point in that article about minimum sink rate speed. I was in the position of flying a PFL in IMC the other day, and I adopted normal glide speed, but I was thinking “what’s the point of maximising glide range when what I really want is a soft impact”. Now I know it’s about halfway between normal glide and stall speed.
Yes but assuming you get visual before impact (which is really the only scenario worth practicing as otherwise you are stuffed and only luck will save you), you want a controllable amount of airspeed with the plan to bleed it off just before touchdown in the flare as Pilot_DAR says. I wouldn’t get to slow too high. I think touching down a little too fast is far preferable to stalling during the flare before touchdown.
IIRC Pilot_DAR wrote something similar a long time ago about the danger of getting behind the drag curve during a forced landing on land…not enough energy to arrest the sink before touching down…same principle.
The Barry Schiff article did recommend accelerating to best glide speed at 1000 feet.
Airborne_Again wrote:
The Barry Schiff article did recommend accelerating to best glide speed at 1000 feet
Yes, and that’s a start, but “best glide speed” is useful if you’re trying to make it to a place. It is defined in certification as the airspeed which gets you the farthest for the least altitude lost. That’s great if that’s your objective. However, it is not the optimum speed for a forced landing, unless you are highly skilled in judging your flare perfectly. If you are ditching, other than perhaps trying to splash it right beside a rescue ship, you really don’t care exactly where the plane ends up, but rather doing a survivable job of it. That means the plane comes to rest upright, with as low deceleration forces possible. That will be achieved by being in control, and controlling what happens.
Think of it this way: While flying your wheelplane, and having a limitless runway ahead, could you fly a low pass down the runway, and while at a few feet off the surface change your mind and decide to land (‘cause runway length ahead is not a concern)? Sure, easy and relaxed, no rush, hold the altitude, while keeping wings level, and slowing. Eventually, you’ll nicely settle on under perfect control. The flare will be minimal because there is no requirement to arrest a rate of descent, you were already flying parallel to the surface. It’s the gyrations of arresting a rate of descent (changing the direction of the aircraft’s path, and very close to the surface) which challenges pilots – so, in an emergency, take that out of the equation! No power? Assure that you will no miss it. Lots of space (water) ahead? Don’t worry exactly where you put the plane. Get right down on the deck at a speed well above any stated “glide speed”, and maintain control and attitude until you contact the surface under control. Remove as many variables as possible, or at least place then much earlier in the event, so you don’t have to deal with them at the end.
Here’s a pilot who did not get it as right as he might wish, he glided down at slower than “best glide speed”, and had nothing left at the bottom. Because of the steep arrival path, he had a lot of descent arresting to do, and could not at all. I accept that he might have been stretching a glide to get there (that area is densely populated, and perhaps he wisely recognized ditching as the best option). But, one he arrived to the shoreline trees, he could have brushed their tops, while he traded alitiude for the final speed he needed to flare.
On the other hand, these pilots planned very well. The still seem to have broken the fuselage, but I attribute that to an over zealous pull/pitch up after contact, which was not necessary (why I disagree with that point in Barry’s article). If they had just held the pitch attitude at contact, they would not have porpoised back out of the water, and splashed back in, breaking the plane.
Just maintain control of the plane, until you no longer are able. You’re not just along for the ride because you have just contacted the water. If that were the case, a floatplane or flying boat could hardly be landed safely!
Peter wrote:
Select full flap because that allows water contact at the lowest speed
My concern with full flaps would be that the flaps hit the water first, causing a forward rotation, resulting in the nose digging in. Barry seems to agree. He says: “should not be landed in water with flaps fully extended because this can cause pronounced nose-down pitching”
Also, a TB20 ditched in the Greek Islands last year (or the year before). I was wondering, how the ditching was performed, since successful.
