What's the best way to ditch a microlight?

[Guest davidh10]

Mmm, I have been following this thread with interest. Having been a passenger in a Trike many times, I am interested in what you would say to your passenger if you were flying anywhere near water. You assume that no matter what, you will be able to land somewhere .... but what if you fall short? As a passenger, do I leave my visor down, or up? When do I undo my seat belt? (I am pretty much stuck behind the pilot with no room to move at all).

Ok; My opinion... and like others, I'm learning and changing my ideas continually.

First the easy ones:-

 

• Visor down as it provides some face protection.
   
   
  
• Seat belt fastened until the aircraft stops.
   
   
  

 

 

In terms of a passenger briefing, it is my belief that the passenger needs to understand the risks in order to make an "informed decision".

 

I have on one occasion flown a passenger at approx. 600' AGL over the local lake, where from that altitude an engine failure would result in a water landing. Prior to doing so, I explained the risks and asked the passenger if they accepted the risk and would still like to do the low pass over the lake. On that occasion, the passenger accepted the risk.

 

I think that based on this thread, I would modify the briefing in the future, as while for the engine I'm running, the risk of a stoppage is very low, the consequences in this situation are potentially very severe.

 

Humans tend to view risk in strange ways, and coloured by the potential consequences. For example people accept the risk of driving a car, almost every day knowing there's a chance of a car accident that may be fatal. They feel that the liklihood is very low. On the other hand lots of people buy lottery tickets feeling they have a reasonable chance of winning. In reality the chance of having a car accident is much more likely.

 

On this basis I think that potential consequences need to be taken into account when assessing risk. This sort of two dimensional hazard categorisation is performed in industry for assessing hazards (an example). The liklihood of occurrence together with the potential outcomes are considered together to assess the extent of the hazard and what mitigation measures could be used to reduce either of the dimensions.

 

 

[Guest slb]

David

 

• Visor down as it provides some face protection.
   
   
  
• Seat belt fastened until the aircraft stops
   
   
  

Yes, this is what I was thinking too.

 

For example people accept the risk of driving a car' date=' almost every day knowing there's a chance of a car accident that may be fatal. [/quote']As a car passenger I also look out for any potential 'risks' and am ready to alert the driver. There are always risks but I feel four eyes are always better than two.

 

I am not sure I would feel comfortable at 600ft above a lake though....

[Guest davidh10]

...As a car passenger I also look out for any potential 'risks' and am ready to alert the driver. There are always risks but I feel four eyes are always better than two.

So you would ask a driver to stop before a bridge on which was approaching a large truck, after all, you could both see it, but if for some reason it crossed the centre line of the road, there would be nowhere to go.

This is an analogous situation.

 

I am not sure I would feel comfortable at 600ft above a lake though....

...and that is the whole point of explaining and then asking the passenger. If they aren't comfortable, then don't take them outside their comfort zone. After all the reason for taking a passenger is usually so that they enjoy the experience.

By the way, the same goes for every individual pilot. Don't do something with which you are not comfortable, just because others do it. Succumbing to peer pressure is what lands some in trouble.

 

 

[Kev]

Quite a few opinions here. This is my take on it:

 

Maintaining glide distance is the only safe option. However, things can still go wrong, miscalculation, wind change etc. Also, how much tailwind would you want before going for minimum sink rather than best glide?

 

I would definitely stay with the trike, rather than bail, as I cannot see any way that I could exit whilst maintaining control, and it is almost impossible for my passemger to exit with me in the seat. So there is a duty of care element there.

 

On descent, check harnesses and helmets secure, visors down (and locked, if appropriate). Late final, disconnect and stow comms leads. After impact, wait for aircraft to settle, then release seat belt and assist passenger to exit. When clear of aircraft, inflate lifejacket and activate EPIRB.

 

By the way, there are two types of manually inflatable lifejackets available. My local BCF stocks the Marlin brand and on checking the instructions, I found that they have to be returned to their service agent for annual maintenance and/or cartidge changes.:thumb_down: There are other brands that allow all maintenance to be carried out by the owner.:thumb_up:

 

Safe Flying

 

Kev

 

 

[Kev]

Good thinking. Agree.

 

Safe Flying

 

Kev

 

 

[Guest slb]

This is an analogous situation.

I disagree. When driving you are committed to staying on the road whereas flying at 600 ft over a lake was a choice.

 

...and that is the whole point of explaining and then asking the passenger

I don't think I would like to be asked to give the OK to fly outside the rules (assuming that I was told that it was outside the rules). As a passenger I would not be expected to know if it was OK to do so, and would expect the pilot to always fly safely.

 

 

[Bluey]

If you have a chute use it as this will remove the forward motion part of the equation and reduce the risk of inertial effects such as the bar banging you in the chest. With the aircraft descending vertically you can undo the belt and intercom cable before impact. It may also be possible to stand up and ready yourself for the exit as the aircraft is no longer flying. As to the chute not firing, well this should not happen to the vast majority of cases. If it does then something is wrong with the design that would require attention by the manufacturers. While I have not done any research into any failings, I have never heard of any issues. It goes without saying that you are better flying over land. Yet I know of many trike pilots that regularly do the victor 1 flight past Sydney airport and the heads and don't give it much thought. Although I must say they all fly 4 strokes. I don't know of a single 2 stroke trike that has ever done the full 15 mile crossing.

 

Bluey

 

 

[Mark11]

Having read everything in this thread, may I say, many good points.

 

Should i ever have to ditch my trike, i would be expecting a very rough landing and be prepared to release seatbelts immediately.

 

I have read in Jim Davis PPL book p 444 - survival at sea "ditching" that GA ditching survival rate is 88%.

 

Obviously, GA airplanes are very different from trikes and cross water far more often than trikes and therefore can develop statistics...

 

Having said that,

 

I have a passion for amphibious planes....

 

There are quite a few attempts to transform trikes into amphibs.... Or build purpose built amphibious trikes (cygnet for example seems to work just fine)

 

I am planning on flying over and landing on still water in my x series trike in the future - It will have floats that turn it into an amphibious plane... I hope I never need to attempt a water landing without floats...

 

My CFI says all trikes with floats SINK! So, that doesn't encourage me at all.

 

That could be a case that the best floats are still yet to be made - or that trikes are just more unstable on water than other amphibious planes.

 

I guess I'm heading off topic now, so I'll stop.

 

Regards

 

Mark

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

You may like to view this less than perfect landing by an amphibious trike. This was one that was meant to land on water too!

 

 

 

[Mark11]

David, thanks for the video - I have seen this before. It certainly shows the additional problem with landing on water. One you stop, you can still sink - very quickly!

 

 

[facthunter]

I would think that If you are contemplating ditching a trike, it would be best to do it before you purchased it. Nev

 

 

[Dieselten]

Trikes don't ditch well or gracefully.

 

They hit the water, stop almost instantly, things break and bend quickly and they sink, fast and frequently tail-first due to the weight of the engine.

 

A broken wing with slack wires and jagged tubing-ends greatly diminish your chances of a successful egress/escape.

 

Your last conscious thought before you drown will most likely be "why didn't I get some more height and go around this....."

 

Probably better to be knocked unconscious by the impact so you are blissfully unaware of your impending death by drowning.

 

Better still...don't ever get into a situation where you have to ditch a trike in the first place. Just don't!

 

(BTW, whatever happened to paragraphs? Are they not taught in English classes now? Is English still taught, or has it been replaced with some dumbed-down version in which layout is no longer considered important? Mind you, given the obvious passion and conviction with which he was writing, perhaps we can excuse Mr Bartosik for his lack of paragraphs. He certainly seemed intent on getting a very strong message across.

 

No problem here BTW...he's preaching to the converted. Many years ago now I took a training-course in survival at sea and practiced abandoning a sinking vessel, inflating a liferaft and trying to get into it whilst waterlogged and wearing a bulky lifejacket. All the theory in the world is useless when you're freezing cold, soaking wet, disorientated and have to exert yourself strenuously in order to gain the necessities for for survival, and that's without being injured or in shock! )

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

Some more thoughts here.

 

Here's a news report of an English Channel ditching. There's more info in the video than in the text article.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Here's a news report of an English Channel ditching. There's more info in the video than in the text article.

AAIB report here http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Mainair%20Blade%20912,%20G-MZOR%2003-11.pdf

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[skeptic36]

AAIB report here http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Mainair Blade 912, G-MZOR 03-11.pdfCheers

 

John

After I did my TIF I bought all the books but never went on with the training because I saw how many accidents there where and thought maybe the instructor wasn't quite truthful when he was telling me how safe trikes are.

A few years later I saw one for sale that looked cheap, that prompted me to read a little more, that's when I realised that most of the accidents, when you read the report are caused by blatant stupidity, similar to the above.

 

I then went back and did the training and so far have been lucky enough to survive the couple of brain fades I've had.

 

Interesting to read how he managed the ditching and survived though.

 

Regards Bill

 

 

[boingk]

Very interesting, and yet very short-sighted. Four hours in any sort of light aircraft is a long time and yet the thought of fuel didn't cross his mind... thats a big mistake. What happened to '10 mile' or '15 minute' checks? Geez...

 

As for conditions becoming "bumpy" so as not able to land, I'd say that says it all. Inexperienced, unprepared and without a licence. Not terribly surprised that the guy ended up ditching to be honest. Good to hear that he got away unharmed, though.

 

- boingk

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

So, from the AAIB report:

 

He slowed the aircraft to between 30 and 40 mph, removed his helmet and gloves and released his harness. Just before ditching, he allowed the speed to build slightly so that when he pushed the control bar fully forward the nose would rise and the back end of the aircraft would hit the water first. Just before impact, he moved as far to the side of the seat as possible and, when the aircraft hit the water, was thrown clear.

I don't think I'd remove my helmet and gloves, as these provide some protection. I would unplug the headset and stow the cable inside my clothes so that it would not tangle on anything.

 

The idea of undoing the seat belt and, given that in an Airborne trike, there's more of your legs under the instrument panel, perhaps hanging both your legs out one side is an interesting option. The premise being that you will be thrown clear of the trike before it tumbles.

 

I'm not sure how that works with the bar at chest level, as you still have to fly it into the crash. Probably more luck than certainty. Perhaps with the bar pushed all the way out, you slide under it! There's probably also a fair chance that as you slide out just ahead of the rear wheels you get clobbered by them, as a human body has much less inertia than a trike, so will likely slow more quickly once hitting the water.

 

For those who have come to the thread late, also see the video linked in post No5 for a crash in apparently shallow water. It gives you an idea what the trike looks like afterwards too.

 

*This is all speculation on my part, and certainly not a recommendation.

 

 

[howard]

just had a thought on disconnecting the front bar prior to crash landing.

 

in my trike (outback with streak II) the trike is 'locked' into place by the front bar.

 

so with the bar disconnected and the trike coming to a sudden stop (50knt - 0 knts in 4 secs), wouldn't the whole engine and wing weight make the whole main mast come forward and smash you on the back of the head?

 

 

[alf jessup]

just had a thought on disconnecting the front bar prior to crash landing.in my trike (outback with streak II) the trike is 'locked' into place by the front bar.

so with the bar disconnected and the trike coming to a sudden stop (50knt - 0 knts in 4 secs), wouldn't the whole engine and wing weight make the whole main mast come forward and smash you on the back of the head?

Fair chance of that Howard happening, but if you don't fly over where you can't land you will never have to worry about it.

 

Like I said in an earlier post I have my theory on it and my plan but I never intend to test out the theory on it.

 

Alf

 

 

[howard]

Fair chance of that Howard happening, but if you don't fly over where you can't land you will never have to worry about it.Like I said in an earlier post I have my theory on it and my plan but I never intend to test out the theory on it.

Alf

i agree, the sky above you is useless, but for example, have you flown around the coastal track at brisbane?

from the mainland to the first island, you cannot achieve a 'engine out gliding height" due to controlled airspace.

 

very unnerving spending 20 mins listening to every note of the old 2-stroke.

 

as opposed to crossing shark bay in WA, where i crossed the coast at 3000 and continued to climb to the midpoint before cruising down the rest of the way.

 

my original thoughts were to bale out when you got the trike near the water & down to about 40knts/stall but this would still mean your body hitting water at 75kph. not good.

 

so undo headset, keep helmet and seatbelt on, visor down and pray.

 

as for preparation, get round to a neighbours pool, get your boots, flying suit, headset and helmet on.

 

jump in the pool and have him throw a hills hoist & a huge tarp over you.

 

repeat until there is no panic.

 

one idea was to insert inflatable beds in each side of the wing so the trike might float, any test pilots out there?

 

 

[crusty]

Great preparation suggestion Howard, love it!!!!!

 

WP.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

This comes under the food for thought category.With the advent of the new flying over water regulations, I foresee some of our pilots dashing down to BCF to purchase their new PFDs. Before rushing in too quickly, they may wish to consider what their actions might be if the worst should occur, and also add the 'should we put down on water...' part to their passenger brief.

 

I have previously read one or two accounts of trikes ditching, and make no mistake, it is not a landing, it is a crash. There appear to be two schools of thought on the best time to disembark. They are (a) stay with the trike until it comes to a complete halt, then exit, and (b) exit at the last possible moment before hitting the water.

 

Does anybody have any strong opinions, or better still, experience that they might share? Actually, experience would be better, because if they are able to relate it, that means that they have survived the event, and whatever they did works...

 

Safe Flying

 

Kev

Hi Kev,

 

This one keeps popping up from time to time on the BMAA ( UK ) forums and on a lot of others too. Having been a trike pilot since 1987, I have been very lucky in that I have not had to ditch one.

 

I have absolutely NO idea about what the ideal answer may bem if indeed there is one. My thoughts ( only ) are that I would rather exit the aircraft just before impact with the water for one main reason, based upon a ditching which occurred in the English Channel, some years ago.

 

Peter Keel, ( lovely bloke, ) was flying in a gaggle of aircraft across the Channel between Dover and Calais, France. His rotax 447 stopped, and being unable to restart, he didtched it and stayed with the aeroplane all the way down to impact with the waves. I wasn't there at the time, but JUDY LEDEN was. She held several records for hang gliding, including being dropped from 40,000 feet from a balloon over Jordan, and also flying across the English Channel, again from a balloon drop some years before. She writes a good book, I guess you could Google it. . . .

 

Peter became trapped in the wreckage of the Pegasus XL trike, probably with the thin alloy tube "A" frame wrapped around him, and lots of flying wires also. The aircraft floated, due to air trapped under the wing fabric for up to half an hour, ( don't quote me on that - ask Judy ) whilst she circled overhead to attract the attention of a nearby French fishing trawler. The trawler approached the wreckage and Peter's head was above the water and he was obviously still alive, but the boat bumped into the aircraft and the air spilled out from under the wings and it sank immediately, before they had managed to get a rope onto it.

 

Neither Peter, nor his aircraft were ever recovered, so we will never know why he couldn't extricate himself from the aircraft, or how badly injured he might have been. His machine was very lightweight,. . . designed in the early 1980s, and was basically a Low - Energy aircraft. Later trikes are a lot heavier, with a much higher stalling speed.

 

I think that it is quite possible that, especially considering the flying and glide speed of "Modern" flexwings ( trikes ) with four cylinder heavy powerplants adding to the total inertia of such a landing, that there would be severe deformation of the airframe caused by an immediate down pitch at impact, caused by 1 ) the undercarriage striking the water first, initiating the forward tilt. . . followed immediately by 2) the front of the trike pod and then 3) the wing, all in extremely rapid succession.

 

This could place a sudden, very considerable downward compression load on the frontal area and top of the wing, forcing the control frame into and around the front pilot's body. This strong impact, and I cannot see how it could be really any different, depending upon what negative "G" force the manufacturer intended for the type of wing, ( and since trikes are supposed to fly in Poistive mode all the time, I'll wager it wouldn't be much I.M.H.O ) is likely to cause severe physical trauma to the front crew member's ribcage, and upper torso, possibly rendering him / her unconcious or at the very least Immobile, due to impact shock, and also possibly physically unable to disconnect any safety harnesses worn, and unentangle any errant aerodynamic wires and pieces of either broken or bent aluminium tubing. . . in order to exit the aircraft very quickly before it sank. This is assuming ( ! ) that it did not flip forward on impact,. . .( which is a lot more likely ) and became inverted in the water, adding another immediate problem for the crew ( as if they didn't already have enough to think about. . . .) allow a few seconds for shock and awe, and you have a couple of drowned individuals.

 

A similar incident happened recently in Thailand, both instructor and passenger / student drowned, after ditching at the end of a beach pier, which they had inadvertantly struck with part of the airframe during an attempted ditching.

 

As I mentioned at the start of this post, I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER. If I ever have to ditch MY low-energy trike, I intend to leave it as late as I can and then depart over the side. I KNOW it is REALLY DIFFICULT over water to juudge height, I found this out during floatplane training, but giv en the few statistics available, I'd certainly rather break my legs dropping into water from fifty feet, than drown wrapped up in my favourite aircraft.

 

Just a few thoughts, Hope you don't mind me sharing them with you.

 

Kind regards,

 

Phil Perry ( hours on assorted trikes - 1,200 'ish )

 

 

[Phil Perry]

I'm aware of several cases where trikes have been flown without the front strut pins in and have also seen a trike land at a flyin with the mast cam lock flapping about on the strap outside the trike. Seemingly no immediate harm came to them though I don't know how good the outcome would have been in rough air or a heavy landing.I don't know how easy it would be to actually remove the pins in flight but my concern with releasing the front strut prior to ditching would be the risk of the impact folding the trike up and making egress even s harder. Whilst the front strut might impede exit I would have thought the wing wires would be a greater obstacle.

 

I could well be wrong but I thought the DTA 's had a limit on the wing keel which does the same job of preventing excessive pitch up inputs as the front strut does on more conventional trikes.

 

Cheers

 

John

Hiya John,

 

Cracking good thread this, lot of sensible debate here, Bin there Dun that, I once flew my newly acquired trike with the "Swan Catch" ( the bit which connects the two frontal control frame wires to the nose of the wing ) just hanging on there without the Whizzpin inserted, due to being distracted by a visitor during the rigging excercise . . . . I have to say that I seriously doubt whether the aircraft could have maintained flight if that catch had become disconnected, since there would have been no triangle of stability between the rear of the longitudinal wing keel rear, and the front of it, and therefore the weight of ME, and my innocent passenger, would have placed an unnaccptable bending load on the monopole ( sorry, - MAST ) The front compression strut would have made no difference, as it is simply attached to the front of the mast and the nose of the pod. . . , and the wing would have been able to pitch up with no sensible control available. The control frame would have been useless, other than for roll and Pitch Up inputs ( ! ) We have been thru this scenario ad nauseum, with reps from the manufacturers also, and if you do the very basic sums, you're dead, or at least, you would be returning to Earth in a novel manner, but NOT in any form of controlled flight. !!

 

I know of several front / compression strut failures / failure to insert whizzpins etc,. . .. this usually results in the purchase of a new mast, as it's bent, and won't pass the next permit inspection ( ! ) but thus far, no fatalities. This is because the rearwards bending strain is all on the mast, and the wing remains competely controllable, ( unless you have two slightly bulbous crew members sitting in the pod. . . . )

 

I find that checking my seven whizz pins just before takeoff usually does the trick.

 

Philthefatphlyer

 

 

[facthunter]

With your newly adopted title, you are painting a "grewsome" picture there Phil. Nev

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Aye its an interesting thread on a seemingly never-ended topic Phil - shame we aren't chatting over a few jars in the local eh ;-)

 

My recollection of the Channel incident you mentioned was that he survived the ditching and was out of the trike in the water - hence I would personally consider this as an argument for staying in the trike. That he then got run over by the Frog "rescue" boat, whilst tragic, doesn't make me any more convinced of the feasibility of jumping out. I don't know any cases of anyone actually attempting to do this - why not ? Do engine failures over water only happen to trikers who are proponents of ditching or do some people change their minds about jumping when they are faced with the prospect of actually doing it ? Rhetorical questions I guess and I'm happy to agree to disagree !

 

I have to say I share your assessment of the odds of surviving the swan neck detaching is pretty accurate (but entirely preventable !)

 

One of the cases of a trike flying with no front strut pins was actually from the same strip as the Cherokee pilot you brought up in another thread. Many years ago I flew from the airfield over the hedge from there & even then periodically witnessed a Cherokee being flown in a, shall we say, "enthusiastic" manner. Might not have been the same pilot or aircraft though.

 

Cheers

 

John