Originally Posted by
atakacs
Hmm pretty damning....
Any specifics about this document? Pardon my ignorance but who is that Deakin?
Well Mr Deakin's opinion is as legitimate as any, I guess. I don't share it, except in the instance when the fire cannot be extinguished promptly. If it has been extinguished, one's choice of a landing site probably depends on how the airplane is performing on the remaining donk. Forgive me for harping back to the Dakota again, but, fifty years ago, plan A was to extinguish the fire and land at the nearest aerodrome. Plan B is open to what desk-occupants call "airmanship".
Quote from
climber314:
"You run the checklist and put it down in an open field ASAP.
Statistically speaking, that would result in fewer/less severe injuries than (partially) controlled flight into overhead wires and a ground structure and vehicles."
Your second sentence is un-contestable, but even the best-executed forced landings can end badly. An example was an Air Rhodesia Viscount in 1978. The aeroplane had been hit in the #3 engine by a heat-seeking missile, causing an non-extinguishable fire in that engine and the failure of #4. Having no alternative to a forced landing, the skipper selected a large, apparently unobstructed cotton field. The approach and belly landing were good by all accounts. Shortly after touchdown the a/c encountered an irrigation ditch. It cartwheeled, broke-up and caught fire. Of the 56 SoB, 18 survived. I imagine the Viscount's approach speed may be slightly higher than the CV-340, but in a similar ballpark.