Question regarding airplane emergency

[Kurbe105 1]

It was a short field take off. Everyone on board was buckled in and all had hard helmets except the tandem students. Every seat belt being used failed 100%. Maybe your only chance would have been to strap in with 3 or 4 belts?

[Southern_Man 0]

Kurbe105

***It was a 206 and the prop does not feather. Pilot was very experienced mega hour jump pilot which contributed greatly to the out come.

My bad on the Cessna details. In the case of a single engine the feathering isn't really even a factor I guess. I was on the load right before that and think I remember the pilot saying that was his 5th emergency landing!
In the case of this TO situation the right engine caught fire then seized and the auto feather failed resulting in a hard yaw to the right just between V1 and V2. The aircraft flew over a heavily wooded area and never got above 120' before impact. It was a hot summer day so the door would have stayed open until 1000' and the load was extremely light with 2 tandems each with video and one solo AFF graduate. It was my home drop zone and I often think to myself "What would I have done if I was doing a hop-n-pop on that load?"

A 206 with 7 jumpers in it? Certainly not a light load.

Keeping the door on takeoff is not a safe SOP.

This whole story doesn't make a lot of sense.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[NoShitThereIWas 0]

The reason I made this post is because I got into a debate with Kurbe105 about our twin otter crash. Forgive him, he is a BASE jumper who does static line himself to shit from 80-120 feet. In our discussion, he mentioned that our friends would have had a better chance of survival by going silver in the door than waiting for the airplane to crash. Whoever asked the cute question when the last time my belly was calibrated??? When you are sitting next to the window, see the engine on fire after hearing it explode and shut down it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know there is a problem.
Regardless of whether you agree with his EPs or questioning of them in this situation, he is right about the fact that you never know what would happen in a situation like that or how you would react. At least 3 experienced jumpers on board knew exactly what was happening, how high they were and that the plane was going to crash.
I argued with Kurbe105 that there would be no way for the reserve to fully inflate and you would hit the ground before line stretch if you made it past the tail.
Here was the thing that stuck though... The reserve generally takes about 3 seconds to open. The point of my post was to question, if you could clear the tail from impact, what would the chances be of surviving with something over your head before you hit the ground?
I was trained not to do that with aircraft EPs. If I was on the plane I am sure I would have wound up just like my friends following protocol. That is not the point of this post to point that out nor am not saying this is what I would do so bashers please keep bashing to yourselves. However, my friends are no longer here and I cannot help but listen to other thoughts of other possibilities for the eventual outcome. I more or less was hoping to get an answer on what the odds of survivability would be if an experienced jumper did pull silver in the door. I am not suggesting anyone "try this at home".

Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires."

Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

[Kurbe105 1]

The 206 had 4 jumpers and the pilot. The door remained closed and the load landed safely from 400'. That was in Lake Wales Dec 2005. The TO had 7 jumpers and a pilot with 20+ years of flying jumpers. The crash was in July 2006 in Sullivan, MO. Even with the pilot's skill level I don't know that I would have felt safer in the the airplane then trying to drag myself out with the plane fucked as bad as it was. Also it only had dash 20 engines and was definitely not in a climbing attitude. I hate the powerless feeling I get when I imagine myself in my friends' situation.

[pchapman 261]

NoShitThereIWas

The reserve generally takes about 3 seconds to open.

I won't get into the rather theoretical issue of being in the plane, diagnosing that the pilot isn't maintaining altitude and airspeed , unbuckling, pushing past other jumpers (unless one is at the door), opening the door, and then jumping at 120' ... which requires that the pilot had a whole lot more altitude before that.

But for a thought experiment; nothing all that practical:

One could do better than normal with a 120' level exit, if one climbed out and held tight to the floater bar or doorway (and assuming you're leaving everyone else to die), popped the reserve, and didn't let go until the inflating canopy ripped you off the aircraft. I'll leave aside any issues with the canopy catching on the horizontal tail, especially if the plane is nose high at slow speed. (Although the Twin Otter tail is high.)

By hanging on as long as possible, that takes away some of the altitude loss, at least to the point of the freebag coming off the canopy.

I remember that video of a static line hangup under a C-182. The student eventually pulled his reserve, and that freed him from the aircraft (and misrouted static line system). The canopy by chance happened to open nose upwards, and so he actually ended up being fully open and flying 'level' ABOVE the level of the aircraft (although the aircraft may well have been descending gradually).

So if one needs minimal altitude loss during deployment, and one can clear the aircraft structure, pulling while hanging on the aircraft would make sense.

[Zlew 0]

Sorry about your friends.

Some situations you are pretty well fucked no matter what you do. A plane crashing from 120 feet is one of those situations.

I do think that you need to know your emergency procedures and protocols and stick to them. Likely to cause more harm than good if every load of 20 plus jumpers has 20 people trying to decide to go by the book, or take their chances every time an engine sputters below 1000 feet.

[skycatcher68 7]

I'll bet in hindsight, this guy probably wished he had a parachute during this takeoff.

Inadvertent Low-Altitude Bailout

What if the Bible had been written by Stephen King?

[NoShitThereIWas 0]

+1 Thank you for answering my question.
@Skycatcher: Yeah no shit! That looked pretty fun until his strap came undone!!!

Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires."

Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

[Kurbe105 1]

Zlew

Sorry about your friends.

Some situations you are pretty well fucked no matter what you do. A plane crashing from 120 feet is one of those situations.

I do think that you need to know your emergency procedures and protocols and stick to them. Likely to cause more harm than good if every load of 20 plus jumpers has 20 people trying to decide to go by the book, or take their chances every time an engine sputters below 1000 feet.

I agree with you in general but in this case there was no sputtering. The engine burst into a ball of fire and seized to a grinding halt as the wheels lifted off.

[Boomerdog 0]

Since gravity is constant regardless of any horizontal component, the time is takes to hit the ground from 120 ft is 2.74 seconds. This is obtained by fixing the intial vertical velocity at 0. Then taking the square root of 2 times the vertical distance of 120 feet divided by 32 ft/sec/sec acceleration.

Knowing this, stay with the plane. Others around here may know better but I fairly certain that's not enough time to clear the aircraft, "so silver" and have any assurance of walking away from that decision.

I humbly beg everyone's pardo for "going geek" but the numbers pretty much provide the answer.

[shropshire 0]

But your course length is not 120 feet .. it will be a parabola (I think) and the length of the arc will be based upon your height and the horizontal component of your speed (forward throw?).... Now, it;'s still ain't gonna be enough more but it's not 120 feet either

Me? I'm staying with the plan ... in the plane

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Kurbe105 1]

The math only works if you're considering free falling from the plane. The question at hand is dealing with trying to leave the aircraft with an inflated reserve. It would be comparable to a roll over or a 'tard' in BASE jumping which takes about 50'-80' to have an inflated canopy but the slider is already down. Also if you do stay with the plane not only do you have to survive the impact but hope you don't get stuck inside the burning wreckage. Keep in mind the right engine is a big orange fireball as you're lifting off!

http://vimeo.com/4193447

[Kurbe105 1]

Here's a photo of the plane as it took off. Take a look at some of the other crash site photos and tell me if you'd still rather take your chances in the aircraft.

https://www.google.com/search?q=skydiving+plane+crash+in+sullivan,+mo&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=ropVUtm5J8TR2QXAuYBw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=677&dpr=1#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=oC0cC_wMaoIrqM%3A%3B9cM-mtlxfUBuaM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Favstop.com%252Fnews%252Fquantu17.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Favstop.com%252Fnews%252Fquantum_leap.htm%3B670%3B369

[linebckr83 3]

It's not fair to look at pictures of a crash and use hindsight to say you would have exited the airplane.

What if it landed softly in a field straight ahead and everyone walked away, then I show you pictures of the aircraft sitting there and say "Would you rather jump at 120' or ride this airplane to the ground?"

You have no idea if a crash is imminent, or a normal emergency landing.

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[Kurbe105 1]

It is VERY appropriate to look at the pictures and ask what situations warrant extreme measures. Just looking at the picture of take off what would you think to do? Can you show me any pictures of a skydiving aircraft with an engine on fire during take off that landed safely? If so, I will definitely consider the circumstances and outcome in forming my opinion.

[Zlew 0]

Kurbe105

Here's a photo of the plane as it took off. Take a look at some of the other crash site photos and tell me if you'd still rather take your chances in the aircraft.

https://www.google.com/search?q=skydiving+plane+crash+in+sullivan,+mo&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=ropVUtm5J8TR2QXAuYBw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=677&dpr=1#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=oC0cC_wMaoIrqM%3A%3B9cM-mtlxfUBuaM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Favstop.com%252Fnews%252Fquantu17.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Favstop.com%252Fnews%252Fquantum_leap.htm%3B670%3B369

It is a shitty place to be for sure. If I was in that situation, I still would have stayed put. In theory, with one engine running that plane should have been able to fly even if the other one was on fire. Even if it loses both engines you have a big high lift wing, and my thought process would be- worst case we are crash landing, wings level off the DZ, and should be much more survivable than trying to bail at 50 to 150 feet (per the NTSB report). I don't think it would be reasonable to assume that the plane would stall and nose dive in the configuration it was in....and thus not reasonable to get out super dirty low. With one engine, and the plane structurally in tact...I just cant honestly see making the conclusion that the plane is going to end up in an uncontrolled nose dive and I need to try to save my own life by exiting. I don't think it would have been clear that the plane was going down uncontrolled until it was too late.

I read the report, and it just sucks.... It sucks that the engine died...it sucks that not everyone had a seatbelt on, and it sucks that some of the ones who did have a belt on didn't seem to get much protection from them (makes me re-think how much I like hose single point belts...).

It just sucks all around. Again, I am very very sorry that you lost friends in this accident.

the report http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2008/AAR0803.pdf

[Kurbe105 1]

Thank you for your heart felt response. You keyed on a very crucial point. The single point seat belts did nothing to help anyone. I have to go back to my post earlier about strapping in with 2 or more belts once you realize your making an emergency landing I guess?

[mjosparky 3]

Kurbe105

It is VERY appropriate to look at the pictures and ask what situations warrant extreme measures. Just looking at the picture of take off what would you think to do? Can you show me any pictures of a skydiving aircraft with an engine on fire during take off that landed safely? If so, I will definitely consider the circumstances and outcome in forming my opinion.

You seem to be cherry picking which part of the report you use you draw you conclusion to leave the aircraft. You fail to mention that at least 2 jumpers were not using the restraints which turned them into meat missiles.

Your chances of surviving would be zero if you attempted to exit.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Boomerdog 0]

Respectfully yes and respectfully no. Acceleration due to gravity is constant. The fall will look like a parabola given the horizontal component but the impact to the ground will still take a little over 2,7 seconds.

[Boomerdog 0]

Oh have no doubt, the math works in the total free fall mode only and admittedly, it was the lone basis for my response. I don't doubt the parameters you inject, but we both agree that the scenario you propose is cutting it way too close. With a good pilot, engine shutdown and hopefully fire extinguished, I'd stay in the airplane.

[linebckr83 3]

Kurbe105

It is VERY appropriate to look at the pictures and ask what situations warrant extreme measures. Just looking at the picture of take off what would you think to do? Can you show me any pictures of a skydiving aircraft with an engine on fire during take off that landed safely? If so, I will definitely consider the circumstances and outcome in forming my opinion.

Many other people have touched on the point that the aircraft should be able to fly just fine on one engine. I work in experimental flight test; we frequently and purposely kill 1 engine and perform single engine climbs, descents, emer landings, and field performance while operating single engine. I frequently ride on the airplanes while we do it. Looking out the window and seeing one engine inop would not bother me to the extent of the normal jumper I guess.

Why do none of these flights end in a firey ball like those pictures? Why do you think the incident was so bad? Because the aircraft lost an engine? Or because the pilot landed it in a forest? I can assure you, if you're over an open area with one engine inop at 120' (and a decent pilot), your overwhelming odds are to stay with the airplane. Just because this incident ended up with an airplane hitting trees and catching fire does NOT mean that is the norm for this scenario. Quite the opposite actually.

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[Kurbe105 1]

You somewhat strengthened my argument because even if you stay with the plane and strap in, there's nothing to stop others who aren't strapped in from taking you out. Looking back after the fact I have to agree that their best chance for survival is strapped in with 2 or more points of contact. This is mainly because of the fact that it appears proper aircraft emergency procedures weren't followed causing a loss in airspeed and a stall. That's the human variable I guess?

I concur it would be wiser to strap in with 2,3 or even 4 belts then to try and fire your reserve out the door even with the engine on fire.

NoShitThereIwas... I think we found our answer ;-)

Blue Skies to everyone who offered their opinions. Hopefully this thread will help keep us all alive until our ride comes to a complete stop!

[shropshire 0]

Boomerdog

Respectfully yes and respectfully no. Acceleration due to gravity is constant. The fall will look like a parabola given the horizontal component but the impact to the ground will still take a little over 2,7 seconds.

Thank you ... against my initial thoughts but I'll go with your maths .... mine's been known to be wrong

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Kurbe105 1]

shropshire

***Respectfully yes and respectfully no. Acceleration due to gravity is constant. The fall will look like a parabola given the horizontal component but the impact to the ground will still take a little over 2,7 seconds.

Thank you ... against my initial thoughts but I'll go with your maths .... mine's been known to be wrong
2.7 to impact from 120' sounds right

http://www.johnnyutah.com/freefallchart1.html

[Bertt 0]

If this thread has any actionable point, it is that pilots - especially of twin engine planes- need to practice their emergency procedures.

You don't have to outrun the bear.