What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

RV10 doors and ditching

M

Machsandy

Active Member
Does anyone have any views or information about RV10 doors separating in flight. I am aware it may have been a factor in previous accidents.
My question is based on concern on being able to open a door after ditching and whether it would be a possibility to open a door in flight and whether it would then separate from the aircraft?
 
Uh...

Pretty sure if you intentionally opened a door in flight it would separate...it may also hit the tail on the way out...:eek:
 
Dont worry about the doors. They need to be open prior to ditching. Anyway, losing the doors will not matter and actually it may be a good thing when exiting. With fix gear, probably, the plane will flip once the landing gear hits the water. A good drill to practice is sitting in the plane with your eyes close (on the ground without the engine running :) and feeling for the door area, putting it to memory. The plane is going to sink to the bottom with or without the doors attached.
 
Doors will separate

There have been numerous examples of RV-10 doors opening and separating in flight (pre-safety latch). I don't know anyone who has opened a door in flight and had it remain attached. You can search the NTSB database for -10 accidents and read more details but I'm 98% certain that during a ditching event, the doors will quickly depart and leave you with a clear egress path. I'm also quite certain that most door separations missed hitting the tail but if your ditching, I doubt a tail impact will matter much :(

David
 
dhmoose said:
There have been numerous examples of RV-10 doors opening and separating in flight (pre-safety latch). I don't know anyone who has opened a door in flight and had it remain attached. You can search the NTSB database for -10 accidents and read more details but I'm 98% certain that during a ditching event, the doors will quickly depart and leave you with a clear egress path. I'm also quite certain that most door separations missed hitting the tail but if your ditching, I doubt a tail impact will matter much :(

David
Click to expand...

There are plenty of examples of doors opening in flight and not separating, but the 2 I know of personally were caught quickly by hand. The most recent had the 'piece of junk' safety latch installed and installed correctly and it didn't keep it closed. There have been several other cases that used the Saint Aviation safety strap and they were non-events.

For ditching, I would open at least one door, but only in a nose-high attitude. There was one case that I know of that opened in level/cruise flight that came off and hit the HS, fortunately not jamming the elevator. I did the repair on this plane, and the whole tailcone was bent due to the impact of the door on the HS.
 
Were those that lost their doors at cruise speed? I do know of one -10 that had its door hit the HS and twist the entire tail cone. The guy was lucky to get his plane on the ground.

That said, if you slowed the the -10 down for best ditching approach speed, would the doors still rip off?
 
Too many variables - even for computer modeling

... we need Myth Busters to weigh in here with some real empirical data :D
 
RV10Pilot said:
Ok Jesse, I'll bite. What is the "Saint Aviation Safety Strap".
Click to expand...

There may be some people on here that have the straps that could send pictures. It's a strap (leather, webbing, etc.) that attaches to the lower forward arm of the gear leg weld Kent and goes around the door handle. Let's the door open about 2-4", but keeps it attached. Has been tested several times in flight (accidentally) and it keeps the doors attached.

The one I am aware of that hit the tail was in the Atlanta area. How about yours, N941WR?

I think the angle of attack is more the issue than the speed. At lower speeds the door would be less likely to rip off if level. At high angle of attack (takeoff-ish), the relative wind is much more likely to rip the door off, in which case it would clear the tail based on my knowledge of doors that have come off. If I were to ditch, I would, at about 1,000', drop my nose to pick up some speed. Then, at about 500', let the door open and pull up, trading airspeed for angle of attack (obviously taking care not to stall), and let the door depart, then drop the nose for best glide, and slow to hopefully a full stall right above the water, hoping to not go over.

What do the experts say about flaps or no flaps for ditching in a fixed gear plane?
 
I think many recommend against a deliberate full stall 'landing' due to the difficulty of judging height under certain (smooth) water conditions.
Myself, I'd go for full flaps. Slower is almost always better.
 
Well since thousands of people that never post lurk here in the forums and take a lot of info provided by people that do, to be authoritative, I will add my two cents......

I likely would never purposely chose a water landing over one on any type of land because at the speeds we can slow RV's to.
Even though a landing in very rough terrain might produce some injuries, I will at least still be able to breath if I am incapacitated by them enough that I can't exit the airplane on my own.
I say likely never would because I might make a different decision if the dry landing would be putting other people in harms way (a beach crowded with people as an example).

If I was forced to make a water landing (not within gliding distance of dry land), there is no way I would jettison the doors in an RV-10 before touch down.
Have you ever been slapped in the face by water at 60+ MPH? (I have at 45 MPH while barefoot water skiing when I was younger and that was like getting hit in the face with a board)

If you land in water, you are going to have a very short amount of time to exit and you need to be at the top of your game and not trying to get over the trauma of having just been smacked silly.

I would leave the canopy closed in any of the two seat RV's also.
 
Scott,
I appreciate your thoughts on it but your comments surprised me. Why would you be more likely to smack water with your face with a door on versus close in a controlled ditching? I suppose the likelihood increases but I was working under the assumption that a purposely jettisoned door took one more variable (opening a locked door under water while dazed/injured) off the table.
 
dhmoose said:
Scott,
I appreciate your thoughts on it but your comments surprised me. Why would you be more likely to smack water with your face with a door on versus close in a controlled ditching? I suppose the likelihood increases but I was working under the assumption that a purposely jettisoned door took one more variable (opening a locked door under water while dazed/injured) off the table.
Click to expand...

I assume you meant to write "door off versus closed"?

Ditching with a fixed gear airplane you have to pretty much expect to flip inverted. The flip will be rather violent. With the size of the door opening, if the door is already gone you will get smacked.....
 
Jesse said:
...

The one I am aware of that hit the tail was in the Atlanta area. How about yours, N941WR?
...
Click to expand...
I don't recall where it was. I do remember the pictures they posted here on VAF, only to take them down. I tried to find a reference to that incident but couldn't locate it.

I do remember thinking that the guy was lucky that it didn't jam his elevator because of the damage evident in the photos.

rvbuilder2002 said:
...

I would leave the canopy closed in any of the two seat RV's also.
Click to expand...
Interesting thought. I had always planned to open the tip-up and let it float, in the event of a water landing. (Like you, I would rather land than ditch!)

My thinking was that the canopy would slam forward, pulling the struts out and possibly shattering. Then I will push open what is left and exit the plane. Granted, the struts could be an issue AKA skewers.
 
Leave them closed

I really couldn't image opening the doors on the 10 prior to a ditching and potentially having a sudden and unexpected control problem right at a critical moment. I have seen the damage to the horizontal stabilizers and aft fuselage from a departed door. It can be pretty bad.

Vic
 
really, does an open door help......

there is no upside, and pun intended, to opening the door. Tipper, slider, etc....we all loved that Cessna/Piper emergency checklist item that said "open door", like many have mentioned, that did not include "door ejection and let hit vital control service". My experience from folks with much more experience than me, is have handy a "plexiglass break device", this can come in a lot forms that I have seen, but really all easily stored in the pocket next to pilot and you can afford the CG effect. I will personally never open that door on final approach to a landing, on- or off-field, buy like all pilots, I am always looking for that place to land, all the time, anywhere in a flight, and yes, my doors will be closed on the 10 at touch down, fuel off, electrical off, etc...DOORS LATCHED.

To flying and always being prepared for the unexpected....Happy Flying and many more safe landings!
 
Not exactly about losing doors. But on the topic of ditching apparently flipping is the exception and not the norm in a fixed-gear trike. Given the option of the forest or the water I know what I'm choosing. Smacking into a spruce at 60 mph cabin egress is of little concern.
 
BMC_Dave said:
Not exactly about losing doors. But on the topic of ditching apparently flipping is the exception and not the norm in a fixed-gear trike. Given the option of the forest or the water I know what I'm choosing. Smacking into a spruce at 60 mph cabin egress is of little concern.
Click to expand...

All of the RV's (tri gear and tail dragger) that I am aware of that have made water landings have flipped inverted.
Quite a few RV's have been flown at minimum airspeed into the tops of dense forest with minimal injury to the occupants.

A little research on surviving a crash will show that the odds of injury go down dramatically as the duration of the deceleration increases. Sudden stops are very hard on humans

The stopping distance into water in most instances will probably be only 3 - 4 airplane lengths (Here is one example)
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
All of the RV's (tri gear and tail dragger) that I am aware of that have made water landings have flipped inverted.
Quite a few RV's have been flown at minimum airspeed into the tops of dense forest with minimal injury to the occupants.

A little research on surviving a crash will show that the odds of injury go down dramatically as the duration of the deceleration increases. Sudden stops are very hard on humans

The stopping distance into water in most instances will probably be only 3 - 4 airplane lengths (Here is one example)
Click to expand...

I was unable to find anything about RVs being more prone to flipping than other aircraft, but it would make sense tail draggers would be more prone in general. The linked video isn't a water landing, it's a landing in the surf, don't do that :)

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=120998&page=8

This has been debated before, with obligatory links to the equipped article http://www.equipped.com/ditchingmyths.htm

To me, given the data, there is little to support that flying into a forest on the side of a mountain beats a water landing. To each their own though.
 
Where's this RV data, I am unable to find anything related to it?

Are we really comfortable calling that result "common"? Because it sure as heck sounds extraordinary compared to the many accounts out there of fatal forest encounters.

If as you said people will read these post as definitive we should be careful about recommending dangerous practices. As such and again, given this data, water landings are highly survivable and preferable to intentionally flying your aircraft into stationary objects on a mountain. Unless data is available that shows RVs turn into coffins as soon as they touch water, then my point is moot.
 
Last edited:
BMC_Dave said:
Where's this RV data, I am unable to find anything related to it?

Are we really comfortable calling that result "common"? Because it sure as heck sounds extraordinary compared to the many accounts out there of fatal forest encounters.

If as you said people will read these post as definitive we should be careful about recommending dangerous practices. As such and again, given this data, water landings are highly survivable and preferable to intentionally flying your aircraft into stationary objects on a mountain. Unless data is available that shows RVs turn into coffins as soon as they touch water, then my point is moot.
Click to expand...

It seems as though you are willing to accept some data but not others.
Maybe most certificated airplanes don't flip in a water landing (though I am not convinced that the NTSB data that was mined makes it possible to determine that), but RV's do. You don't have to believe me... posting the info for the masses......

There is not data that says RV's turn into coffins when they touch water, but there is history that shows that they do flip when they land in it.
 
Last edited:
rvbuilder2002 said:
All of the RV's (tri gear and tail dragger) that I am aware of that have made water landings have flipped inverted.
Quite a few RV's have been flown at minimum airspeed into the tops of dense forest with minimal injury to the occupants.

A little research on surviving a crash will show that the odds of injury go down dramatically as the duration of the deceleration increases. Sudden stops are very hard on humans

The stopping distance into water in most instances will probably be only 3 - 4 airplane lengths (Here is one example)
Click to expand...

I saw this video when it first came out. Looking at it again, it sure looks like the airplane gear hit the sandy bottom and then flipped. See how shallow the water is where it flipped over? The good thing is the first hit of water, he did not flip, which is interesting.

Also, his flaps were up. Would be great to repeat the experiment in deeper water and flaps down. ;)

I have thought about this (on those crossings of the Sierras), and I always thought I would head for a lake if the worst were to happen. My fear would be dropping another 100 ft when first hitting the tall pines.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. Gives us more to ponder.
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
It seems as though you are willing to accept some data but not others.
Maybe most certificated airplanes don't flip in a water landing (though I am not convinced that the NTSB data that was mined makes it possible to determine that), but RV's do. You don't have to believe me... posting the info for the masses......

There is not data that says RV's turn into coffins when they touch water, but there is history that shows that they do flip when they land in it.
Click to expand...

Not at all, I'm saying I'm looking and can't find data that substantiates the claim RVs are more prone to flipping than any other aircraft. I've searched the forums and find multiple mentions of that same incident in the video you linked, and your comments about it on other threads, but again landing in the surf isn't really what we're talking about. It's not that I don't accept data, in fact I'm willing to modify my opinion if new data is presented, it's that you haven't presented any data to substantiate your claim.

Regardless of flipping or not, the data presented indicates that water ditchings are survivable in the vast majority of incidents. While a comparison of controlled flight into heavily forrested terrain is necessary to say for sure, it seems the water will be the safer option.
 
Last edited:
BMC_Dave said:
Not at all, I'm saying I'm looking and can't find data that substantiates the claim RVs are more prone to flipping than any other aircraft. I've searched the forums and find multiple mentions of that same incident in the video you linked, and your comments about it on other threads, but again landing in the surf isn't really what we're talking about. It's not that I don't accept data, in fact I'm willing to modify my opinion if new data is presented, it's that you haven't presented any data to substantiate your claim.

Regardless of flipping or not, the data presented indicates that water ditchings are survivable in the vast majority of incidents. While a comparison of controlled flight into heavily forrested terrain is necessary to say for sure, it seems the water will be the safer option.
Click to expand...

Having flown over a lot of hostile terrain in the West and on our trips to and from Alaska, I assure you we do ponder quite a bit about the best place to put it down if the engine gives up the ghost. I've come to the conclusion that a water ditching, regardless of any opinions, may NOT put us in the best position for survival and rescue.

We can argue all day long as to whether the airplane will flip, but there is still the task of exiting the aircraft. If you've ever been through a water ditching trainer, it is extremely disorienting, even when you aren't hurt. Water landings have a much higher deceleration rate as well. Couple that with potentially being disoriented, along with numbing cold water pouring in, seems to lessen the odds for survival, in my opinion.

Vic
 
vic syracuse said:
Having flown over a lot of hostile terrain in the West and on our trips to and from Alaska, I assure you we do ponder quite a bit about the best place to put it down if the engine gives up the ghost. I've come to the conclusion that a water ditching, regardless of any opinions, may NOT put us in the best position for survival and rescue.

We can argue all day long as to whether the airplane will flip, but there is still the task of exiting the aircraft. If you've ever been through a water ditching trainer, it is extremely disorienting, even when you aren't hurt. Water landings have a much higher deceleration rate as well. Couple that with potentially being disoriented, along with numbing cold water pouring in, seems to lessen the odds for survival, in my opinion.

Vic
Click to expand...

Naturally hypothermia and survival after the incident are factors to consider and the linked article acknowledges that. Also age, physical ability, any other conditions that would make egress difficult. Still a hard sell on flying into trees, managing to not clip a wing at 80 feet and augering in, or having a branch come through and impale you. Hit a stump at 60mph, yeah no thanks.
 
BMC_Dave said:
Not at all, I'm saying I'm looking and can't find data that substantiates the claim RVs are more prone to flipping than any other aircraft.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what the airplane landing in the surf has to do with anything.... It clearly touched down in a flat smooth area of water. Probably better water conditions than could be expected in a lot of water landing situations.....
It was a bit fast because of no flaps but that is understandable since the pilot had just been involved in a mid air collision with another RV only 20 seconds before....

Anyway,

Not asking you to take my word for it (Though unless you have done a bunch of research on your own it sounds like you are taking Paul B's since he took the time to write an article about it).
Here is another RV ditching that ended in a flip over. A written first hand account of a tri-gear (RV-8A) this time. Story is right here on Dougs web site

If nothing else I hope this discussion makes people think about it and make some decisions in advance.

My personal decision is based on 29 years of involvement with RV's (which includes 29 years of reading the accident reports and sometimes being involved in the investigations in my 21 years working at Van's)

I could point to countless accidents where RV's flew into trees and the people on board had no life threatening injuries (often they walked away just bruised up).

The ditching I linked to above is the only one that I can think of where we can read a written account from a person that was on board.
If anyone knows of others, I would sure like to here about them......
 
Here is an article that addresses trees versus water. The conclusion is that both have a similar survival rate, with trees being slightly ahead (but probably within the margin of error). The risk of serious injury is significantly higher in the trees. However in water there is some risk of drowning after surviving the landing, a risk that essentially does not exist with the trees. Pick your poison!

I pick trees, I'm a lousy swimmer.

http://www.equipped.com/watertrees.htm
 
BMC_Dave said:
How so?
Click to expand...

Paul wrote...
So when there's no open field available and the choice is either trees or water, the choice isn't the lead pipe cinch we once thought it was. The overall survival rate between the two appears to be about the same, but the injury rate is higher if you go for the trees.

To me that seems to imply that he has totally reversed his position that he published in the other article......
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
Paul wrote...
So when there's no open field available and the choice is either trees or water, the choice isn't the lead pipe cinch we once thought it was. The overall survival rate between the two appears to be about the same, but the injury rate is higher if you go for the trees.

To me that seems to imply that he has totally reversed his position that he published in the other article......
Click to expand...


"The chances of sustaining an injury of any kind are somewhat higher when you go into the trees than when you ditch in the water and the chances of a serious injury are quite a bit higher in the trees."

"The overall survival rate between the two appears to be about the same, but the injury rate is higher if you go for the trees."

^ From the conclusion section of the article, as bolded...

Sure doesn't sound like he "totally reversed" his position...
 
Last edited:
good discussion

I can't add any technical data to this discussion, but I can say that I'm happy it's here. I would have always said that I'd land in water (mainly because there is a lot where I fly) since I just assumed that landing in trees would be bad. After reading a bit, it seems that one issue landing in water is your passenger. I've read of two incidents (one *very* close to home, neither in RVs) where the pilot landed in water and didn't get their young child out of the aircraft. I simply can't imagine what that would be like.

Also, an RV8 builder in Oz with an auto conversion of the same type and manufacturer as one I had at the time landed in very tall trees and if I recall correctly it was not that bad. Who'd a thunk it?

I think the advice given by many and probably rightly credited to Bob Hoover is to fly the aircraft until it stops moving, and you'll probably survive. Avoid hitting people on the ground - they didn't sign up for the risk, we did.
 
This is a great discussion, thank you all for your input.

A few years ago, some guy had his -8 chopped up rather than sell it for fear of liability.

If any of you feel like doing the same thing, can you donate the airframe to the EAA with the stipulation that it be used for crash survivability testing? (I know a lot more than getting an airframe to crush, but it would be a start.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top