@WB: Flying a Rotax-powered 2-seater like yourself, I face the same issues, with the added disadvantage of a high wing. I am all for high-wings, but must admit they make ditching look even less attractive. Up till now, my answer has been that 15 minutes without a plan B is 14 minutes more than acceptable, and so I will not be crossing the English Channel as yet.
Neither will I fly to Corsica for the proposed meet-up. [[afterthought: or could I fly higher, there? Will have to look into that]]
Jan,
I started giving this some more thought when I switched to our much more economical and fun Rotax powered steed from the flying club ‘Worriers’… I had been quite happy over water in a PA28 with jackets on and a raft ready to launch. However with hindsight, even getting high in a PA28 has a far longer period without glide options than we do now (and there is one door to get out through!). I’m OK to simply pull the ’chute if the engine stops over water after some sensible checks and attempts are made to get it going again, then let PPrune run a 30 page thread on BRS pulls; but I would like a fighting chance of survival too.
Being based on our ‘lovely’ island, you can’t go anywhere much without crossing the water, so perhaps we become more accepting of the risk… I’d always spend as little time over water as possible and be careful about the time of year to do it. What I really probably need is a raft that is an acceptable weight to place on the rear shelf and then play with fuel to stay inside the M&B envelope. We can then hopefully find someone friendly to leave the raft with at an airport on the channel coast to do the same on the return.
Having said that, I’d still be really interested to hear thoughts on the chances of the airframe staying afloat, assuming a reasonable day with calm seas and descent under the ’chute.
The nice thing about having a ‘chute over water is that you will hopefully arrive the right way up with little forward velocity.
If there is a 20 knot wind, you will arrive at 20 knots – can you release the parachute quickly to avoid being dragged? What effect will dragging in waves have on your aircraft?
An LSA accident in Texas bgecame fatal to one of the occupants as the aircraft was dragged along.
That is a good point. Normally I wouldn’t plan to be over water with a 20kt surface wind and 20kts is going to be a lot less energy than 60kts say. Getting dragged is a worry and there isn’t a way to jettison the ’chute. One would be hope in normal wind conditions that the canopy will settle into the water relatively quickly and that the added drag of the aircraft being partially immersed would make this less likely than on land. I suppose it makes a nice sea anchor too. I still think I would opt for pulling the handle if a ditching was inevitable.
Paragliders and even hang-gliders that ditch often end up with the pilot getting incapacitated through being tangled up in rigging.
Yesterday morning, the pilot of a Dallach Fascination (D-MOSD) managed to achieve a textbook ditching in Wörther See (southern Austria). Both the pilot and his pregnant passenger where not injured, the aircraft remained afloat and was towed to the shore. Reason for water landing is given as „technical problems“ (oh really 
) in various news reports.
It’s a surprise that there are no Youtube videos around. This lake is very popular, and thousands of people most have been there on a sunny Sunday …
Although many factors worked in favour of the pilot (calm lake without waves, aircraft with retractable gear and low stall speed), this supports the view that ditchings can be much safer than emergency landings on rough fields.
Although many factors worked in favour of the pilot (calm lake without waves, aircraft with retractable gear and low stall speed), this supports the view that ditchings can be much safer than emergency landings on rough fields.
Retractable gear is better for most emergency landings, if it is water, snow, rough and soft field. Having fixed gear in those condition and you will have an extreme stop that will turn you upside down.
this supports the view that ditchings can be much safer than emergency landings on rough fields.
Blueline would agree for a boulder strewn mountainside, but I am not sure there is enough evidence either way.
Fixed Gear aircraft on the whole have better survivability in accidents than retractable. This may be due to lower kinetic energy, and the FG absorbing part of the impact.
Another reason maybe that pilots in heavier retractable, might not practice forced landings that often in the type.
Landing gear up may arguably increase the risk of snagging a wingtip and cartwheeling, including in a ditching. It is one of the reasons to use smooth tarmac over grass in a gear up landing, even though grass is seen as ‘softer’.
Retractable gear is better for most emergency landings, if it is water, snow, rough and soft field. Having fixed gear in those condition and you will have an extreme stop that will turn you upside down.
That might be the common adage, but I don’t think it’s necessarily correct.
The photos and videos of fixed gear aircraft ditching that I’ve seen (and since all cross country flights I do require at least 20NM over water, so I pay attention to them) have not resulted in the aircraft going on its back. What I’ve seen to happen is that the main gear will “water ski” for a little while and then sink in. While the deceleration is rapid, it’s not instant. Usually the nose will dip down into the water during the deceleration and then bob up when the aircraft comes to a rest. The deceleration is very rapid in a retract gear aircraft with the gear up, too (I know someone who’s ditched a Twin Comanche)
It’s great that the pilot was able to find a spot on the lake, didn’t hit anything and that all ended well.
(I stayed at the Wörthersee a few years ago and remember it as a very congested place at this time of the year)
