Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Landing in Treetops

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kitfox-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

EMAproducts(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 8:20 am Post subject: Landing in Treetops

 	  Quote: 	
		  Attending a flight safety conference in Germany, last year, we were    told 

 	  Quote: 	
		   that light aircraft should rather try to land on tree tops than    attempt to 

 make a sharp manoeuvre to reach an open field, at the risk    of not being 

 able to do it and end in a wall or another hard surface.    Personally, I 

 think that, if the forest is dense enough, a Kitfox    would simply land on 

 the top of the trees and rescue would come with    a fire brigade ladder. I 

 am not sure but I still feel I stand a    better chance to survive a aircraft 

 crash landing if it is a very    light one. After all, a 30 feet wide, 900 

 pounds heavy object moving    at 40 MPH shouldn't need much to come to a 

  stop.

	

	


 

 Michel,

 I have an example of this in my shop.  About 25 years  ago a pilot had fuel contamination and the engine quit in a Funk B-85  C.  He ended up about 100' up in the Cedar tree he landed on.  He  was rescued by Hook & Ladder truck from Fire Dept.  More damage was  done to aircraft removing from tree with a huge crane than was done in landing  there.  I'm slowly restoring that plane.  Still has cable marks on  door post aluminum cover where the cable wrapped around to remove.   Windshield, all windows & airframe not damaged except for wings &  doors which were totaled by time aircraft was removed from tree.  Two  of my friends heard engine quit and ran to where they heard the noise of crash,  couldn't find plane till pilot yelled at them from above!

 Elbie Mendenhall,

   Restoring the "Cedar Tree Funk"   N-77705 



Make AOL Your Homepage.

  [quote][b]

Michel

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 966
Location: Norway

Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:41 pm Post subject: Landing in Treetops

Well, Elbie and Marwynne, it goes to show that the German instructor 

knew what he was talking about! 



Cheers,

Michel Verheughe

Norway

Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200



Do not archive

_________________
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200

marwynne(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 3:49 am Post subject: Landing in Treetops

Michel

        I am not sure what you are talking about.  What did the German 

instructor say ?

---

av8rps(at)tznet.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:18 am Post subject: Landing in Treetops

All,

  

 I once attended a forum where a military  officer talked about surviving crashes.  He was prompted to talk  more about this after surviving a crash in a F-14 (?) due to complete  engine failure.  The best part was that it was right after takeoff, at  night, and in a mountain range!   Oh yeah, the best part, they  went in at 150 knots!  It was a very interesting forum, and I learned  a lot about crash survivability from what he had to say.   

  

 Ironically, one of the things discussed  was the dispute about whether to try and land a light airplane in the tree  tops or not.  According to him (and a short video clip from Bob Hoover on  the same subject), they both said NOT to land in the tree  tops.  Rather, fly as far into the crash as possible.  Meaning,   maintain as much control of the direction of the aircraft as long as  possible.  They said that trying to land in the tree tops generally  indicates stalling just above the tree tops.  But doing so will limit  your directional control.  So if the airplane doesn't land softly  in the tree tops like you thought it would, you just might hit a 3 foot oak tree  trunk head on instead of that nice soft umbrella you were aiming for.   Plus, even if you could land in the umbrella, it is very likely no one will  find you there.  And if you are injured, it's more likely you  will bleed to death before anyone can get to you.  AND, if no one saw  you go into the tree tops, and you can't wait any longer for fear  of dying of injuries, exposure or thirst, you are just as dead if you  decide to try and climb down, and fall from a 70 foot tall tree.  Not  many of us are all that good at climbing (down) trees, especially if  injured.  

  

 All that said, if I had NO choice I would  put down in the umbrella of trees.  But it would be one of my very last  choices.  I personally have had 5 engine failures in airplanes, 3 on  takeoff.  And I am here to write about them mostly because I (instictively  more than anything else) flew the airplane to the ground in a controlled glide.  And yes, there were large obstacles I could have hit during those  emergency off airport landings.   But because I was able to  maintain aircraft directional control, I was able to avoid hitting any of  them.  So I am a firm believer in "Fly The Airplane" as far into the crash  as possible.  

  

 But that's just my opinion.  I do realize  that every situation isn't the same and sometimes you just have to do what  you have to do.  However, I'm a firm believer if you just focus all of  your attention on "flying the airplane", you will have the highest chance  of survivability.  

  

 The ultralight group has a famous saying I  like;  "You Hav'ta Afta" .  Which means "you have to  always fly the airplane".  I think that says it all, and is the best  advice any of us can follow.  

  

 Paul Seehafer

 Kitfox IV 912 ul amphib

  

 ps - I have a wrecked airplane sitting in my  hangar that landed in treetops in a stalled attitude.  It now has  a 10 inch hole between the rudder pedals in the firewall where a large  branch came into the cockpit, just missing the pilot.  Had it been  inches one way or another, I'd guess it would have been fatal.  In  this case, after he hit the tops of the trees it fell tail first backwards,  landing against a large tree trunk.  Pilot walked away with only minor  injuries.  But I think someone was looking out for this guy that  day...   

 [quote]   ---

Michel

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 966
Location: Norway

Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:30 am Post subject: Landing in Treetops

On Sep 16, 2007, at 1:48 PM, Marwynne Kuhn wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Michel

        I am not sure what you are talking about.  What did the German 

 instructor say ?


	


Last year, I was at a fly-in for PocketFMS in Germany. That evening we 

had a German instructor/inspector ... sorry, I don't remember all his 

qualifications (they were impressive) but he was very friendly and his 

safety lecture was very interesting. Anyway, he took the example of an 

actual airfield and discussed the possible recoveries of an engine stop 

at climb out. In the course of that, he made it clear that in many 

cases it would be better to land on the top of the trees in a nearby 

park, than trying to do a desperate manoeuvre to get back on the 

runway. He said: "Once the proverbial s**t hits the fan, your aircraft 

is only a pillow between you and mother earth. Landing on the trees may 

be the best alternative to preserve your and your passengers' life."

To be true, his example airfield was close to a town with no open 

fields nearby. The alternatives were: back to the runway or airfield 

area, in the buildings, or in the park.



Cheers,

Michel Verheughe

Norway

Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200



do not archive

_________________
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200

Michel

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 966
Location: Norway

Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:46 am Post subject: Landing in Treetops

On Sep 16, 2007, at 2:17 PM, Paul Seehafer wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   So I am a firm believer in "Fly The Airplane" as far into the crash as 

 possible.


	


Of course, Paul, this is also my  (and everyone else's, I guess) 

opinion. The question is: What are the alternatives? In the Norwegian 

mountains there are two: Forest or solid granite rock. I'd go for the 

softer one.



Years ago, a Japanese sailor wanted to sail from Japan to the US in a 

19 feet sailboat. He had to launch his boat at night, with no 

witnesses, because the authorities refused to see him taking the risks. 

A few weeks later he was in a bad storm alone in the Pacific. Feeling 

depressed, he looked through the porthole and saw ... a light bulb 

floating! Probably coming from rubbish thrown overboard by a passing 

vessel. Then he thought: My tiny sailboat is fragile but entirely 

watertight, just like that light bulb. If it can survive this storm, so 

can I! ... and he did since I read his book! 

As I have sailed a lot, I kept remembering that water (at least, at 

that speed) is too soft to damage a very light boat (mine is 27 feet 

long) that will float like a cork. As long as one stays away from the 

nasty rocks along the shore, it's just a matter of waiting.

Which brings me back to the beginning of the discussion: I feel that a 

light aircraft doing a somewhat soft landing, stands a better chance of 

survival than a heavier one.



Cheers,

Michel Verheughe

Norway

Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200



Do not archive

_________________
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200

marwynne(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 9:15 am Post subject: Landing in Treetops

I have to agree with him..   The only alternative I had was to stall the 

plane in a tight turn from 300 feet.

---

av8rps(at)tznet.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 3:44 pm Post subject: Landing in Treetops

Michel,



One would think it could be assumed everyone will fly the airplane in the 

case of an emergency.  But unfortunately that isn't the case.  The accident 

records will prove that many don't fly the airplane as they should in the 

event of an inflight emergency.  Our FAA reminds us of this at safety 

seminars, occasionally showing us pictures of accident scenes where the 

pilot lost control before the crash, when there were no obvious reasons he 

couldn't have just glided it in.



I don't disagree with you, or the german safety expert.  I was just 

restating thoughts and opinions from other safety experts that might make 

pilots more aware of the potential pitfalls of landing in the tree tops.  I 

agree your flying environment doesn't provide for many options.  But most of 

us aren't subjected to terrain like that on a regular basis.  So I didn't 

want pilots here thinking landing in the trees is pretty much a safe 

bet,when they might have other (better?) options possibly.



And fwiw, I agree 100% that a light aircraft has a much higher chance of 

survivabilty than would a heavier one.  Especially if built out of chromoly 

steel like our Kitfoxes are!



Paul Seehafer

Kitfox IV 912ul Amphib



---

MichaelGibbs(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:40 pm Post subject: Landing in Treetops

Paul sez:



 	  Quote: 	
		  I agree 100% that a light aircraft has a much higher chance of 

survivabilty than would a heavier one.


	


After my accident, I told my partners that I wished the accident had 

happened in our Piper because the insurance company could just buy us 

a new one rather than my having to build another one.  One of my 

Kitfox buddies assured me that I probably would not have survived in 

that faster, heavier airplane.



Mike G.

N728KF

Phoenix, AZ

Bob

Joined: 24 Oct 2006
Posts: 89
Location: Damascus, Maryland, USA

Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:13 am Post subject: Re: Landing in Treetops

Hi all -

Been away doing the work, kids, and rest of life for the summer and saw this so thought I'd throw in my 2-cents.  



Trying to land in treetops has been done, but it has become a myth and is far more hazardous than controlling your impact. Go into the NTSB records (www.ntsb.gov) and it's easy to find records like these:



"The airplane dipped to the left, struck the trees and fell to the ground."

or

"the plane hit the tree tops and tumbled through the trees"

or a survivable one in a 172:

"The airplane clipped the tops of the trees, then plunged down nose-first. Both wings were bent by the impact."



There are two reasons that the odds are against a successful tree-top landing.  The first is that after the first contact, you have absolutely no control of what's next.  One of those long wings is going to hit a tree first (or the gear will) and things are going to pivot on that point.  And that first impact will be the fastest one.  



I'd rather control where the impact with the most energy is going to happen.  One of the things instructors teach is that when performing a forced landing in a short field, landing short or hitting trees at the near end with more speed is going to do a lot more damage than controlling where you roll into them while slower at the far end. 



The second reason that tree-top landings don't generally work out well is that gravity still rules.  For every photo that you've probably seen of a plane in the trees, I'll bet you can think of two where the airplane is nose down at the base of some trees.  If you don't truly snag enough tree branches to keep you up, the airplane is going to fall.  With the engine up front and that tail snagging branches at the back, the nose is going to go straight down.  Here's where you need to think of survivability.  Would you be willing to hang your plane by the tail at the height of whatever tree, strap in, and then cut the strap?  That's about what happens in these situations and there just isn't that much crushable material in front of you to break your fall.



There is an upside in that the statitstics show that the  Kitfox and Avid series have an amazingly good survivability rate and it's largely due to the slow stall speeds.  The overall accident rate for experimentals is much higher than the certified airplanes, largely due to fuel and other systems installations.  However, the 'Foxes and Avids land slow (less energy to dissipate) and deform structure in a way that absorbs energy around the central cockpit area, as long as it's not a full frontal impact. Keeping from having a full frontal impact is something that you can control.



Bob

A&P, Aero Eng

Vixen (part-built)

Damascus, MD

_________________
Remember that internet advice may only be worth what you pay.

Fox5flyer
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 5:50 am Post subject: Landing in Treetops

Good logical and common sense thoughts.

Thanks,

Deke Morisse

Mikado Michigan

S5/Subaru/CAP 355+ TT



do not archive

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Hi all -

 Been away doing the work, kids, and rest of life for the summer and saw

this so thought I'd throw in my 2-cents.
	


 	  Quote: 	
		  

 Trying to land in treetops has been done, but it has become a myth and is

far more hazardous than controlling your impact. Go into the NTSB records
	


(www.ntsb.gov) and it's easy to find records like these:

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 "The airplane dipped to the left, struck the trees and fell to the

ground."
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   or

 "the plane hit the tree tops and tumbled through the trees"

 or a survivable one in a 172:

 "The airplane clipped the tops of the trees, then plunged down nose-first.

Both wings were bent by the impact."
	


 	  Quote: 	
		  

 There are two reasons that the odds are against a successful tree-top

landing.  The first is that after the first contact, you have absolutely no
	


control of what's next.  One of those long wings is going to hit a tree

first (or the gear will) and things are going to pivot on that point.  And

that first impact will be the fastest one.

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 I'd rather control where the impact with the most energy is going to

happen.  One of the things instructors teach is that when performing a
	


forced landing in a short field, landing short or hitting trees at the near

end with more speed is going to do a lot more damage than controlling where

you roll into them while slower at the far end.

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 The second reason that tree-top landings don't generally work out well is

that gravity still rules.  For every photo that you've probably seen of a
	


plane in the trees, I'll bet you can think of two where the airplane is nose

down at the base of some trees.  If you don't truly snag enough tree

branches to keep you up, the airplane is going to fall.  With the engine up

front and that tail snagging branches at the back, the nose is going to go

straight down.  Here's where you need to think of survivability.  Would you

be willing to hang your plane by the tail at the height of whatever tree,

strap in, and then cut the strap?  That's about what happens in these

situations and there just isn't that much crushable material in front of you

to break your fall.

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 There is an upside in that the statitstics show that the  Kitfox and Avid

series have an amazingly good survivability rate and it's largely due to the
	


slow stall speeds.  The overall accident rate for experimentals is much

higher than the certified airplanes, largely due to fuel and other systems

installations.  However, the 'Foxes and Avids land slow (less energy to

dissipate) and deform structure in a way that absorbs energy around the

central cockpit area, as long as it's not a full frontal impact. Keeping

from having a full frontal impact is something that you can control.

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 Bob

 A&P, Aero Eng

 Vixen (part-built)

 Damascus, MD

dave

Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 1382

Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 6:03 am Post subject: Re: Landing in Treetops

My feeling is you are better to be able to be in control into the trees than falling into them. If you have airspeed then you have better control than you will when you run out of airspeed.  

I had a friend over 20 years ago faced this scenario while flying his Apache and losing one engine.  With out being able to maintain altitude on single engine operations his Apache went into 130 foot tall trees .  After it slowed , what was left of the fuselage and the 4 occupants suffered only minor injuries until gravity took over and they basically free fell over 100 feet to rock. They all suffered severe back injuries from that alone. 



I have been PIC in  4  engine outs so far since I learned to fly nearly 30 years ago ,  one I landed  at an airport the other 3 were all forced approaches off airport.  Fortunately, none of the occupants ever had injuries nor did the aircraft.  I feel lucky and also think that the training and practice I have had contributed to my luck.  that being said i could have another forced approach today or tomorrow and if so I hope to handle as best as possible.

_________________
Realtime Kitfox movies to separate the internet chatter from the truth
http://www.youtube.com/user/kitfoxflyer
Hundreds of Kitfox Movies
Most viewed Kitfox on youtube
Most popular on youtube
Highest rated on youtube

Rex Hefferan

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 147
Location: Olney Springs, Colorado USA "NOT a Kitpig"

Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 6:45 am Post subject: Re: Landing in Treetops

This may not be of much use to this discussion, but this famous photo is from a local airport and I just couldn't resist any longer.

http://www.meadowlakeairport.com/INDEX2.html

 Scroll down to read complete story.



 Do not archive

_________________
Rex
N740GP - M2/582
Colorado

marwynne(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 7:01 am Post subject: Landing in Treetops

---

marwynne(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 7:12 am Post subject: Landing in Treetops

Everything that was said makes common since.    The only issue that is 

missing is if you have a choice of where to land.   It is great to read a 

document and second guess what should have been done.    I know for a fact 

that if I had just another minute of flight time that I could have made an 

open field . In fact if I had another 50 feet of  altitude , I could have 

landed in an open field.



---

Michel

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 966
Location: Norway

Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 10:41 am Post subject: Landing in Treetops

On Sep 17, 2007, at 1:43 AM, Paul Seehafer wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   So I didn't want pilots here thinking landing in the trees is pretty 

 much a safe bet,when they might have other (better?) options possibly.


	


You are absolutely right, Paul. I should not give advice as to what to 

do in the case of an emergency landing and I wasn't either; I merely 

quoted someone else.



On Sep 19, 2007, at 2:13 PM, Bob wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   There are two reasons that the odds are against a successful tree-top 

 landing.  The first is that after the first contact, you have 

 absolutely no control of what's next.  One of those long wings is 

 going to hit a tree first (or the gear will) and things are going to 

 pivot on that point.


	


Two very good arguments, Bob. But remember that the choice in the given 

example was: treetops or concrete buildings. The argument from the 

German instructor was: Branches are softer than concrete.



On Sep 19, 2007, at 4:03 PM, dave wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   My feeling is you are better to be able to be in control into the 

 trees than falling into them. If you have airspeed then you have 

 better control than you will when you run out of airspeed.


	


That makes sense, Dave. The German instructor never talked about 

stalling above the trees. Incidentally, a few years ago, a pilot flew 

in a row of trees nearby where I live. After take-off, with much load, 

short field, high OAT, etc. he tried to avoid the treetops by flying 

near the stall speed i.e. with too much induced drag and ended in the 

high treetops and felt on the other side of the row. He survived but 

his passenger was killed. Each situation demands a different handling. 

I think the most important is to be prepared, i.e. always asking 

oneself: What if ... e.g. the engine stops now?



On Sep 19, 2007, at 4:45 PM, Rex Hefferan wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   This may not be of much use to this discussion, but this famous photo 

 is from a local airport and I just couldn't resist any longer. 

 http://www.meadowlakeairport.com/INDEX2.html  Scroll down to read 

 complete story.


	


Thank you very much for the link, Rex. I got the first photo half a 

year ago and I immediately saw that it was 'photoshoped' (retouched). 

After talking with some friends, we agreed that the photo was a fake. 

It turns out that it is not, only a few details have been changed to 

make a better punch line.



On Sep 19, 2007, at 5:11 PM, Marwynne Kuhn wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Everything that was said makes common since.    The only issue that is 

 missing is if you have a choice of where to land.


	


Exactly, Marwynne. The question is not: Should I land in the treetops, 

but rather: What are the alternatives?



Cheers,

Michel Verheughe

Norway

Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200



Do not archive

_________________
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200

Bob

Joined: 24 Oct 2006
Posts: 89
Location: Damascus, Maryland, USA

Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 7:11 pm Post subject: Re: Landing in Treetops

The alternative is the one left unspoken, and that is to leave yourself an "out."  The fun of flying Kitfoxes is flying low for a lot of people. Unfortunately, they are combining that with home-spun fuel and electrical systems.  If you're going to fly low enough to limit your choices, accept the potential consequences.



For most cases, the "out" is simply to have enough altitude to have a choice of where you're going to have a forced landing.  Think of how far you can glide with an additional thousand feet of altitude. Or, if need be, with 2000 or even 5000 feet.  It's like buying insurance in that it gives you gliding distance and the probability of SOME field increases by calculating the difference between the radius (your range) and the area of a circle (available landing sites).  



Bob

_________________
Remember that internet advice may only be worth what you pay.

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kitfox-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum