Water Landing

The mystique of "Those Magnificent Flying Machines" is well-preserved. Only a few select people have a license to fly an aircraft, and fewer still get paid to do it. The idea of jet-setting all over the world isn't thought of as "living out of a suitcase, always away from home", but as "constantly visiting exotic locales". And most people have no idea how a huge vehicle weighing hundreds of thousands of pounds can fly through the sky, making the entire business even more magical.

And when something goes wrong, like a double-engine failure over a major city resulting in a water landing, and everyone lives to talk about it, it is major news.

I'm a student pilot, at the post-solo, pre-license stage. I have a wife. My wife is (fortunately) worried about my safety, as she recognizes that any activity increases risk to life and limb.

And so I got The Interrogation this morning. My wife is very talented, and I am very verbose, so all she needs to say is "So what do you think about this water landing?" Thanks for the invitation, here you are....

Engine-out flying is no big deal. From early in a pilot's training, we are taught to fly engine-out forced landings. Every glider pilot flies without an engine. Most landings, I have the engine at idle.

Planning a forced landing is, again, a basic training activity. Within gliding range, find a "suitable" landing area. Effectively, suitable means least-worst. If you are within gliding range of an airstrip then you have access to a very good alternative - in fact, landing on a runway is such an attractive alternative that part of our training is to land straight ahead if the engine fails shortly after takeoff, as you have neither enough kinetic energy (speed) or potential energy (height above ground) to execute a 180 degree turn and get back to the runway. Glider pilots have a different attitude to an off-field landing. A power pilot thinks of a off-field landing as an emergency, while a glider pilot considers it an opportunity to go make friends with a farmer.

This landing will likely change the attitudes about on-water landings, and I'm not sure this is a good thing. Landing on water is routine for float planes, of course, but they are built for it, and they meet the water at a very low angle of incidence - the same angle as wheels on a runway. As Swissair 111 unfortunately demonstrated, when you meet the water at a high angle of attack and at high speed, hitting water is like hitting concrete. At a low angle of incidence, you bounce (ask a water-skier). The picture on the seat-back cards, showing a plane floating in the water tail-down while everyone makes an orderly exit through the front doors is the desirable, but extremely unlikely, outcome. An airplane with fixed or extended landing gear will have the gear dig in, the sudden drag will likely flip you over, and the sudden whip-lash is likely more stress than the aircraft can handle. The Really Big Risk for an aircraft with under-wing engines is that one engine will dig in before the other and cartwheel the aircraft, like the 1996 Ethiopian Airlines hijacking that did a forced landing in the ocean when it ran out of fuel. On the whole, if you don't have floats strapped to the bottom of your aircraft, you are better landing on flat land of any description, rather than on water.



I'm glad the pilot decided to put the aircraft down on the river. A fully-laden A320 will slide for a long way on the ground, and there isn't a "long way" available in a dense urban area. That means they would have plowed through homes, shopping malls and businesses for a distance, spewing fuel from the near-full fuel tanks and inflicting carnage on anything in their path. Given the known risks of landing on water in an engine-under-wing aircraft, the pilot considered the aggregate welfare of the people on the ground and on the aircraft, and put the people on the ground ahead of the welfare of the people on the aircraft. Exceptional decision making. That he had a flyable aircraft (it wasn't powered, but otherwise fully controllable) was an asset that he used to full advantage.

The landing itself was beyond outstanding. The aircraft didn't cartwheel, it just plowed in, likely planed on the surface for some short distance, and then settled in. It doesn't get any more perfect than this.

I heard a news report yesterday that they were looking for the engines. Since they knew where the aircraft was (lashed to a jetty at the side of the river), that implies the engines were ripped off mid-river during the landing run (I doubt they fell off mid-air, but to be pedantically accurate, we don't know). Ripping an engine off a wing takes a huge amount of stress, meaning that there was a huge amount of drag from the engine digging into the water. The aircraft didn't cartwheel or ground loop (water loop?), so the drag must have been balanced, and the engines tore off at close to the same time. The flight recorder will have captured the deceleration, altitude and direction (including yaw), so what happened will be authoritatively established during the investigation. However, all of this would not have happened unless the pilot kept the wings very level - another demonstration of exceptional flying.

Non-aviators, and non-professional aviators, will not understand the underlying attitude that competent pilots must have towards situation management. When something goes wrong, you have to do something, you have a range of choices, you have to select something and then do it. The next part is critical - you evaluate the results of your choice, and then you keep making more choices. No matter how many things have gone wrong and how bad the situation might be, you always have to have the attitude that there is management to be done, and there is always something you can do to make the situation better. This might be described as a can-do attitude, or glamorized as "the right stuff", or described in a low-tech manner as "flying the airplane until the last part stops moving" - and it is a required skill for a pilot.

Initial media reports are that the engines failed due to bird strikes, and in particular, Canada Geese. A Canada Goose weighs between 6 and 14 pounds, and they fly in flocks, so plowing through a V-wedge of them would certainly inflict heavy damage on an aircraft. My wife asked if I had an encounters with birds. Sure have. I worry about bird strikes on take-off, when speed, altitude, visibility and options are low. We commonly see flocks of snow buntings come off the ground on final approach - when that happens I continue the landing since I'm gliding or at minimum power and not dependent on the engine, and set up for landing. A bad thing would be to reject the landing and switch to a take-off, hit the birds, lose the engine, be at full flaps in a nose-up attitude at a higher altitude and with not much runway ahead.

The one group that did meet my expectations throughout all of this was the electronic media. But I have very low expectations of the electronic media, and they delivered at the expected level of hoopla (high) and expertise (low).