PA 28 Forced Landing Without Power - Door Latch

[fireflybob]

The POH (aka Flight Manual) for our PA 28 -161 does not say anything about unlatching the door in the event of an actual forced landing without power.

Some checklists (yes I know some of them are awful) state to unlatch the door and some instructors teach this.

Am interested in opinions etc - Do you teach to unlatch the door, if so why?

[Captain_Snape]

Hi,

I fly a PA28 and I was trained to un latch the door. The reason for this is that a forced landing would probably result in the air frame distorting, leading to the door being jammed. If the forced landing was due to a fire, or a smoke filled cabin or even a fire breaking out following a forced landing then you certainly wouldn't want the door being jammed stuck shut.

Naturally un latching the door would be on final and not whilst choosing a field.
Hope this helps!

[cavortingcheetah]

Always taught to unlatch the door. This happened after shutdown and at time of security brief to pax, ie: seat belts, sharp objects, glasses etc. Here's a basic check list from a PA161 which calls for an unlatch.
http://airserma.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/emergency_checklist_PiperWarriorPA28.pdf

[Big Pistons Forever]

I also teach students to unlatch the door on final if practicable. But this should only be done after the cause check has been completed, the engine secured if it is not possible to restore power, and the aircraft is established on a stable gliding flight path to a suitable surface to crash on.

Only after all of the above is completed should you be worrying about radio calls, pax briefings and opening the door

[cavortingcheetah]

Most of the forced landing pax brief can, of course, be run through with the passengers prior to take off. They really ought to know how to unbuckle, unlatch and extinguish before starting the take off .

[Tarq57]

Unlatching the door on this type was taught as part of the "short final" checks, time permitting.

Sometime later, I was made aware of another point of view: The door being latched improves the strength of the passenger cabin. "Leave it latched" was the advice.

Seems reasonable to me.

[Edit]
On further consideration, it doesn't actually seem reasonable. The door, while reasonably strong, probably doesn't add much strength to the cabin structure; the top latch is there to lock the upper part of the bendy door into the stronger door frame of the cabin. It's hard to imagine the door adding that much strength to the cabin, unlike in some cars where the door is an integral part of the safety "cage".

I've seen a Cherokee on it's roof, following a big wind gust. The roof was flattened almost to the dash coaming. I guess the moral is to not flip them on landing.

[Whopity]

I have a number of different PA28 Check Lists, all of which were derived from the FM. Each contains a CRASH/EFATO Check varying from 8 to 10 items. The PA28 140/180 slab wing Check says Door UNLATCH and on the PA28-161 taperwing, it says Door -Top Handle UNLATCH.
Personally, I would totally unlatch the door as any distortion may prevent it opening.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Crash loads on inversion are certainly not a certification requirement so it would be unsafe to assume anything but the worst.

[fireflybob]

I have a number of different PA28 Check Lists, all of which were derived from the FM. Each contains a CRASH/EFATO Check varying from 8 to 10 items. The PA28 140/180 slab wing Check says Door UNLATCH and on the PA28-161 taperwing, it says Door -Top Handle UNLATCH.
Personally, I would totally unlatch the door as any distortion may prevent it opening.

That's the point I am alluding to that many checklists have "Unlatch door" included in the Crash Checks but nowhere in the POH/FM does it say to do that (unless anyone can prove otherwise!).

I am not so much debating the pros and cons of unlatching the door but whether the manufacturer has included this in the relevant POH/FM and so if not, why not?

Many checklists I see (including the link above) seem to be full of the writer's personal ideas about how to operate the a/c rather than complying with the POH/FM.

[Big Pistons Forever]

While it is correct that Piper does not include opening the door in their Emerg Checklist, it seems like a pretty common sense thing to do, particularly in a airplane with only one door.

The caveat is this is in the "should do" not "must do" category of actions after the engine fails. Getting the engine going again, remembering approximately 80 % of engine failures are caused by the actions or inactions of the pilot; and if not successful accurately flying the airplane to a chosen touchdown point are the important parts of this exercise

[cavortingcheetah]

One can, of course, in the pre take off briefing, always tell the front seat passenger how to unlatch the door at the same time as you yourself make sure that the tail of his seat belt is inside the aircraft and the door securely latched.

[flarepilot]

first off, I taught in cherokees for quite awhile and opening the door at trail was pretty standard for an emergency landing

but why ask here?

why not just contact PIPER aircraft and ask them?

why not get it from the horses mouth instead of the horses empenage?

[Big Pistons Forever]

One can, of course, in the pre take off briefing, always tell the front seat passenger how to unlatch the door at the same time as you yourself make sure that the tail of his seat belt is inside the aircraft and the door securely latched.

Yes but you are required by regulation (at least in Canada) to tell you passengers how to open the door so that they may escape from the aircraft on the ground.

Opening the door in flight on the final to a forced approach is another issue entirely and as has been pointed out already is not addressed by Piper. Therefore it becomes a judgement call by the PIC and as I have previously noted it is my personal opinion that this is a good practice for obvious reasons.

[rjtjrt]

Tarq57 wrote
On further consideration, it doesn't actually seem reasonable. The door, while reasonably strong, probably doesn't add much strength to the cabin structure; the top latch is there to lock the upper part of the bendy door into the stronger door frame of the cabin. It's hard to imagine the door adding that much strength to the cabin, unlike in some cars where the door is an integral part of the safety "cage".
That is, to be fair, as you clearly say, an opinion rather than a demonstrated fact.
I would not be surprised to find the opposite - namely that the structural integrity of the cabin was significanty reduced with the door open, and probably also if goor unlatched and slightly ajar.
I would like to see engineering evidence either way.
John

[Tarq57]

I would like to see engineering evidence either way.

John, Yeah, me too.

The opinion is merely based on the perceived strength of the door, which is quite easy to make flex. It might add a bit of strength to the cabin, or it may add a lot; my thinking is "probably not".

[Genghis the Engineer]

To be fair we don't know if the door would jam either - although most people think that this is the case.

It would be very interesting to take a scrap PA28 fuselage and crush it to see what happens. Better still two - one with the door open, and one with it closed.

Whilst I'm somebody else who would always have the door ajar if I can, for all I know the door will just pop out like a champagne cork.

[Nopax,thanx]

Here's a video of a PA-28 being crash tested (several others on here as well, the Cherokee starts at 05:22) It fares quite well in a flat impact.

Crash Tests: "Light Airplane Crash Test at Three Pitch Angles" 1979 NASA - YouTube

[Clare Prop]

Both my Warriors and my Archer are approved for flight with the door removed, mainly for photography; in the case of the Archer the baggage door can be removed as well. I have also flown a Cherokee six with the back door removed for skydivers. The door off approval is an engineering order.

The door in a PA 28 or 32 is not structural.

[flarepilot]

agree with clare prop


I can think of one plane's doors that are structural, it is a system used on the metroliner by swearingen

slang term: click clacks. when door is closed the structure carry through via click clacks which make the door part of the structure.

it is one reason why , in the film "MOONRAKER" only the Handley Page Jetstream could be used in the opening scenes. Taking doors off some planes do cause structural problems...also jumping out of the front door of a metroliner would cause you to be devoured not by JAWS but by the prop.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Both my Warriors and my Archer are approved for flight with the door removed, mainly for photography; in the case of the Archer the baggage door can be removed as well. I have also flown a Cherokee six with the back door removed for skydivers. The door off approval is an engineering order.

The door in a PA 28 or 32 is not structural.

I'm sure that the first statement is true, but that doesn't make the second true.

The door may not be essential for compliance with part 23, which is the airworthiness certification standard for the aeroplane. But, the requirements for crashworthiness in part 23 are pretty limited, and it is both possible and advisable that designers exceed the minimum requirements considerably.

My understanding of that door is that it adds structural strength, and that this will include resistance to crushing. It's just not required for part 23 compliance.


So in the case of your aircraft, you can legally remove the doors, and that has been shown to provide an aeroplane which complies with the regulations. But, with the door fitted, almost certainly structural strength is greater, and in the event of a crash, you're better off with the door.

[Clare Prop]

Thanks Genghis, what is your opinion about the advice on having the door ajar for a forced landing? Is the risk of getting it buckled and jammed more than the risk of a structural failure? The Cherokees seem to have a pretty sturdy frame around the door.

[Genghis the Engineer]

My opinion, unsupported by much hard evidence but a fair bit of experience, is that if the forced landing is onto a reasonably smooth and flat surface, I'll have the door unlatched and ajar.

If it looks like I may, for example, be coming down in trees, I think I'd err on the side of leaving it closed for strength.


I know of an occasion where somebody I know put a PA28 through a ditch and hedge at the end of a runway, removing the prop, nosegear and one wing. The door, which had been closed and latched, opened fine. Of course, that's just adecdotal evidence from a single incident, but in long retrospect, interesting.

I also saw not long ago another PA28 which had landed, presumably following an EFATO, in a ploughed field off the end of a runway. It wasn't looking at-all healthy, and I anticipate it required quite a substantial rebuild - but it had remained upright, and the door had been opened: I don't know whether before or after the landing.

G