Originally Posted by
Pilot DAR
I can't agree that a water landing with a fire is preferable. Of course, no landing with fire is good, and you gotta do what you gotta do, but... considering occupant safety as the primary objective, a water landing will introduce more hazards. If there is a choice between water and decent land for an on fire crash landing, I'd take the land. My reasons: You have a better chance of maintaining control of an intact aircraft to the stop on land, than on water, there is no risk of drowning, if it's been a fuel fed fire, the fuel will spread the fire over a larger area on water than land, and people can't run away from it in the water, it'll be easier for emergency services to reach you on land, a person's injuries will be more likely to become infected in the water, than on land.
I have more experience with this that I would like to have had.
Can't say I disagree
Pilot DAR. All good points. In fact, my original comment was deleted for some reason, but remains quoted in another post?
Quote from climber314:
"You run the [fire] 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."
Perhaps the water landing reference had/has something to do with the specific type/age of the plane in question? IDK. I'm going to leave the final analysis to the experts and John Deakin is certainly one of the few remaining. Further, I am hoping that the surviving pilots are able to shed some light on their thoughts and intents.