I am under the impression the Cessna 100 series aircraft have great safety records due to their very forgiving flying nature (avoiding the crash), not their 'crashworthyness'. Unfortunately Cessna couldn't make them 'pilot proof'. (as stated repeatedly above, fuel starvation, etc.)
If I am wrong, I will no doubt be corrected shortly..........(and sometimes when I'm not 'wrong', just didn't make a clear, concise, accurate point, as one must do on this forum).

lc

Littlecub wrote:I am under the impression the Cessna 100 series aircraft have great safety records due to their very forgiving flying nature (avoiding the crash), not their 'crashworthyness'. Unfortunately Cessna couldn't make them 'pilot proof'. (as stated repeatedly above, fuel starvation, etc.)
If I am wrong, I will no doubt be corrected shortly..........(and sometimes when I'm not 'wrong', just didn't make a clear, concise, accurate point, as one must do on this forum).

lc

Littlecub - Trying to rate the "safest airplanes" in a meaningful way, let alone crash-worthiness, is a difficult task when one considers that by far the largest majority of aircraft accidents, whether fatal or non-fatal, are caused by pilot error, rather than by failures of the airframe or engine. For instance, most engine-outs are caused by fuel starvation rather than by actual mechanical engine failures. Therefore the stats for any given airframe have a lot to do with who flies it and how it's flown.

For example, C150s have a very good safety record at least in part because they are generally not flown cross-country a lot as compared to other aircraft that are mainly flown cross-country, so weather-related accidents in C150s tend to be relatively low. Also, a lot of time flown in C150s is dual time with a qualified CFI flying right seat, which also helps reduce accidents even though the left seater is not very experienced.

The insurance stats show that the fixed-gear Piper Cherokees like mine (a PA28-180) tend to have proportionally more landing and takeoff accidents that are typical for pattern flying than do the retractables (PA28-180R & PA28-200R) which tend to be flown more cross-country. However, the retractables also tend to have a lot more weather-related accidents typical of cross-country flying than do the fixed-leg Cherokees. Which also means that the fatality rate for the retractables tends to be higher, because you're more likely to pack it in if involved in encounters with icing or T-storms than if you flub a landing rollout and bend some sheet metal.

EZFlap wrote:Although it has little to do with the crash-worthiness of the airframe itself, having sailplane experience and particularly "emergency" off-field landing practice will help stack the odds in your favor. There is no substitute for experience in these sort of emergencies... so having 20 or 100 off-field landings in gliders will certainly help your decision making when the chips are down in a powered airplane that just became un-powered.

EZ - I've heard the same argument in favor of glider experience before, but I'm not sure of its real value. To compare the typical glide performance of a glider (upwards of 20:1 glide ratios absent thermals) to that of a typical light airplane (around 10:1, or less, no matter the thermals) means that the time and distance involved in finding and successfully landing the latter is not very comparable to the former. In fact, the point of gliders is not to glide down to a landing so much as it is to catch a thermal and ride it up high and far, with a skilled glider pilot and decent thermal activity making the only limitation on glide distance the pilot's attention span and bladder capacity.

The best argument I've heard for glider training for light aircraft pilots is that the stick-and-rudder skills matter much more to gliders, and that skill does translate to powered flight.

The best engine out training for light aircraft pilots is to practice pulling the power back (in a properly situated flight training area, and observing engine cooling limits), setting up best glide speed, selecting a landing site, and then running through the checklist (fuel tank selector, mixture control, carb heat, restart checklist, etc.). Knowing your aircraft's descent rate without power is a very handy bit of knowledge; of course, a dead engine with a windmilling prop will increase your descent beyond that of the engine idling. Even without pulling the power back, mentally running through all of the steps, while running along in normal cruise flight is also good practice on any flight outside the pattern.

The Cessna 150 was the number one trainer for decades. For it to have such a great saftey record with students flying it is quite an acomplishment. I agree that a lot of times there are instructors in the plane, but they also were used for student solo work and probably the 120's, 140's and 150's had more first solo's than any other planes.

I agree that the best way to survive a crash is to not have one. But if you look at the FAA Accident site, you will see a Lot of Cessnas crash. Probably more than any other make. That is because there are a lot of Cessnas flying. It still is the lowest for fatalities and that says something to me.

As for the most crashworthy plane, I would say that would have to be a Helio Courier. They do have a crash cage built around the passengers and it is covered with aluminum skin. Plus they can fly in controlled flight down to 25 kts. I have seen a couple of them land and it is amazing how slow they can fly. A Helio Courier is on the top of my wish list for sure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkiNYjOT ... re=related

nmflyguy wrote:
EZ - I've heard the same argument in favor of glider experience before, but I'm not sure of its real value. To compare the typical glide performance of a glider (upwards of 20:1 glide ratios absent thermals) to that of a typical light airplane (around 10:1, or less, no matter the thermals) means that the time and distance involved in finding and successfully landing the latter is not very comparable to the former. In fact, the point of gliders is not to glide down to a landing so much as it is to catch a thermal and ride it up high and far, with a skilled glider pilot and decent thermal activity making the only limitation on glide distance the pilot's attention span and bladder capacity.

The best argument I've heard for glider training for light aircraft pilots is that the stick-and-rudder skills matter much more to gliders, and that skill does translate to powered flight.

The best engine out training for light aircraft pilots is to practice pulling the power back (in a properly situated flight training area, and observing engine cooling limits), setting up best glide speed, selecting a landing site, and then running through the checklist (fuel tank selector, mixture control, carb heat, restart checklist, etc.). Knowing your aircraft's descent rate without power is a very handy bit of knowledge; of course, a dead engine with a windmilling prop will increase your descent beyond that of the engine idling. Even without pulling the power back, mentally running through all of the steps, while running along in normal cruise flight is also good practice on any flight outside the pattern.

Well, yes... however in the glider world you actually follow through and do the off-airport landing, dust cloud and all. Until you have had that experience personally, the rest is just talk. Most of the engine-out practice I did in a 150 with an instructor ended at about 500 feet when the instructor started to sweat and said "OK, put the power back in, let's get outta here". The truth is that we're both correct. Gliding around in a 40-1 L/D glider is of course a far cry from a 10-1 Cessna. That is true. But just practicing quiet flight in a Cessna, and making a note of the descent rate at 1500 feet AGL over a farm field is also not the whole enchilada either.

The two largest single factors in my opinion are:

1) Knowing the actual landing areas in which you can make a successful dead-stick arrival. Doing actual drive-around and walk-around research in your area, around your airport is crucial.Having walked on the places where you could land (golf courses, parking lots, wide stretches of road, which type of farm fields are good and which are not) is a HUGE factor in your favor. Being able to say "between the airport and that river, i have these three fields I know are OK", or "between here and that mountain I have nothing really usable", makes a big difference, allowing you to fly in the safest manner you can. Some people flying over farm fields will laugh at this because they are surrounded with good fields. Those of us in the city have far far fewer emergency places. People flying in the back country have a mixture of good areas and moonscape areas.

2) Being able to get your airplane down and stopped in the least amount of space possible is equally important. You need to know how much room you require, and how much extra to add for phone wires, trees, hills, etc. A 700 foot clearing in the trees isn't much good if you cannot get your airplane stopped in 700 feet.

oops... delete

EZFlap wrote:A 700 foot clearing in the trees isn't much good if you cannot get your airplane stopped in 700 feet.

Bottom line is to aim at the cheapest thing you can hit, and keep pushing and pulling until everything stops moving.

Far better to run off the end of your landing area into the rocks/trees at 25 MPH, than to stall/spin from 100 feet up, or land short at 75 MPH.

Some guys, yours truly included, have a really bad temper when airplane shit breaks, and get way too mad to let the airplane get the best of us. I cuss all the way to the ground.

I've flown with other guys who just quit, and sit there letting the airplane make the decisions for them when bad stuff happens. Those are the guys who end up dead most of the time.

Gump

Well said Gump.

Also stopping a windmilling prop usually results in a 100-300 fpm gain. That could result in enough time to get you away from the hard stuff (I was always taught to pick the softest landing spot available).

And X100,351 about flying it until everything stops moving.

GumpAir wrote:
Some guys, yours truly included, have a really bad temper when airplane shit breaks, and get way too mad to let the airplane get the best of us. I cuss all the way to the ground.

Glad to hear that I'm not the only one who cusses in an airplane while stuff is happening .

GumpAir wrote:

EZFlap wrote:A 700 foot clearing in the trees isn't much good if you cannot get your airplane stopped in 700 feet.

Bottom line is to aim at the cheapest thing you can hit, and keep pushing and pulling until everything stops moving.

Far better to run off the end of your landing area into the rocks/trees at 25 MPH, than to stall/spin from 100 feet up, or land short at 75 MPH.

Some guys, yours truly included, have a really bad temper when airplane shit breaks, and get way too mad to let the airplane get the best of us. I cuss all the way to the ground.

I've flown with other guys who just quit, and sit there letting the airplane make the decisions for them when bad stuff happens. Those are the guys who end up dead most of the time.

Gump

Very good point, Gump ... it's all about the velocity and deceleration as your flight terminates ... i.e., the kinetic energy you have and how fast you shed it.

Stall/spin = very bad ending, always .... running off the end of your "runway" into some rough stuff at 25 mph can often/usually be survivable, that is unless it's into a big tree or rock, or off the edge of a cliff.

Around here in the Southwest, some of those flat mesa tops can look mighty inviting to an engine-less pilot, but they could be really painful if you land too long or too short!

One thing to consider is survival after the crash/emergency landing. Maybe this is a different topic than crashworthy airplanes but it is definitely related. If you are going to fly low and slow and land at remote fields and something happens and you end up with a crumpled airplane you need to be prepared for the fact that what is on your person when you get out of the plane with is what you have to survive with. You might be lucky enough to get back in plane to retrive your survival gear but I wouldn't count on it. Therefore the CAP guys that do searches for missing airplanes and people at 1000 to 500 feet over all kinds of terrain wear a vest with basic survival gear stored in it. These can be fishing vests that can be purchased at sporting goods stores for under $30.00. You can fill the pockets with what ever survival gear you feel is appropriate. I would suggest looking on the Internet for survival tips. The least you would want to carry is a knife, a leatherman tool, a signaling device and a fire starting method. Some water would be high on the list especially in arid areas of the country. Food is nice but you can live a long time without food. The vests are light weight and not restrictive and don't need to be worn en route at higher altitudes that allow for time to put the vest on in the event of an emergency.
Paul

Paul, you're right. That is a different topic. There are several topics in progress regarding survival vests/equipment/etc:

• "Survival and Egress Gear"
• "After the crash: Survival gear etc"
• "Survival Gear"

g5paul wrote:One thing to consider is survival after the crash/emergency landing. Maybe this is a different topic than crashworthy airplanes but it is definitely related. If you are going to fly low and slow and land at remote fields and something happens and you end up with a crumpled airplane you need to be prepared for the fact that what is on your person when you get out of the plane with is what you have to survive with. You might be lucky enough to get back in plane to retrive your survival gear but I wouldn't count on it. Therefore the CAP guys that do searches for missing airplanes and people at 1000 to 500 feet over all kinds of terrain wear a vest with basic survival gear stored in it. These can be fishing vests that can be purchased at sporting goods stores for under $30.00. You can fill the pockets with what ever survival gear you feel is appropriate. I would suggest looking on the Internet for survival tips. The least you would want to carry is a knife, a leatherman tool, a signaling device and a fire starting method. Some water would be high on the list especially in arid areas of the country. Food is nice but you can live a long time without food. The vests are light weight and not restrictive and don't need to be worn en route at higher altitudes that allow for time to put the vest on in the event of an emergency.
Paul

Always carry a SPOT on one of those day glow orange construction vest over the back of the seat or is Velcro to the glare shield . If not spot one of those PLB units. I always carry survival kits in extended baggage and short kit/backpack on cargo net.Keep thinking ahead -what if ? I carry 2 survival kits (in old cat litter cans--10-12 inch square and 18" high )about 20 lbs each. One with shelter stuff the other food -batteries-and water. A good hand held radio . Ax or shovel and firearms . I'll send a list for anyone interested
if you get me a email at [email protected]

GumpAir wrote:

EZFlap wrote:A 700 foot clearing in the trees isn't much good if you cannot get your airplane stopped in 700 feet.

Bottom line is to aim at the cheapest thing you can hit, and keep pushing and pulling until everything stops moving.

Far better to run off the end of your landing area into the rocks/trees at 25 MPH, than to stall/spin from 100 feet up, or land short at 75 MPH.

J-5 engine failure in 2007. Flew it down and held that stick back. The pictures don't do it justice, that was a rough sand trap, I thought for sure as I hit it that I was going to flip the bird over. It came to a stop in around 150 feet, and I didn't touch the brakes.

I had told my g/f where we were going, and she ended up taking a nap right through about an hour after my ETA back home. A pilot friend also knew when we'd be back and checked in with my g/f, and then the search was on. A local pilot in his C185 found us but couldn't land there, so he called in our position to FSS and we got picked up in the State Trooper's Cub with the Bigfoot tires after around 5 hours of roasting in the sun. Now I don't go anywhere, even around the patch, without my .44, several bottles of water, and my SPOT.