93

I was watching these 'what if' parachute failure videos on YouTube and everywhere they say do not choose water over land. Why should we not choose water and what happens if we land in water?

One such video:

Pondlife
  • 71,714
  • 21
  • 214
  • 410
karthikdivi
  • 960
  • 1
  • 6
  • 11
  • If a parachute fails, what options do you have other than falling straight down? A bit more context would be useful; describe a scenario, link to an example video, and give as much information as possible. – bjelleklang Nov 08 '17 at 09:31
  • 3
    Welcome to the site @karthikdivi. Are asking about ballistic recovery parachutes, also known as whole airframe parachutes, or skydiving? If skydiving then your question is related to parachute jumps and not aviation, so it's off topic. – GdD Nov 08 '17 at 09:31
  • 70
    You can't drown on land. – Ron Beyer Nov 08 '17 at 12:25
  • 31
    @RonBeyer it depends how hard you try – BeB00 Nov 08 '17 at 12:56
  • 23
    @GdD The meta consensus so far is that questions about parachuting (and paragliding) are on topic. Many modern parachutes are basically flying wings so it's hard to see why we'd exclude them (and that's not even considering the many ways that parachuting is relevant to aircraft pilots). – Pondlife Nov 08 '17 at 13:39
  • 1
    @bjelleklang You can achieve significant sideways travel just by angling your body...one figure I have seen (not sure how accurate it is) is that you can go sideways about 2/3 of your vertical fall. If you try to open your parachute and fail at 2500 feet, you could possibly go sideways almost a third of a mile. – user3067860 Nov 08 '17 at 16:37
  • @bjelleklang You actually have a very significant amount of control over your direction while falling without a parachute. Experienced skydivers will know how to do this. Inexperienced ones are another story, however. Your descent rate, on the other hand, is rather difficult to control... – reirab Nov 08 '17 at 17:52
  • Speaking for sky divers, not pilots, there is a secondary emergency chute which we are trained to count to 5 and if partial or total failure of main chute deploy it. I disagree that land is always better. It depends on the situation. Swamps are shallow and the bottom mud is soft. – 0tyranny0poverty Nov 08 '17 at 18:33
  • 69
    Aim for a hospital. – Marc Bernier Nov 08 '17 at 19:37
  • If the land is not flat, and if it has trees, I can see a clear reason to aim for land instead of water. – Pierre B Nov 08 '17 at 20:45
  • 15
    That's why we call it landing. – MC Emperor Nov 08 '17 at 21:11
  • 44
    It will be easier to find your body. – talex Nov 09 '17 at 03:20
  • 1
    Personally I'd prefer to go head first for a very quick ending. – Armada Nov 09 '17 at 16:16
  • 9
    @Armada. Are you speaking from personal experience? – Mad Physicist Nov 09 '17 at 19:22
  • 3
    The video is pretty self-explatory in the first minute or two. YOU WILL BREAK YOUR LEGS... YOU WILL BE IN SHOCK. Those two things alone are pretty incompatible with landing in a body of water and expecting to survive, which is presumably the goal. – Mad Physicist Nov 09 '17 at 19:24
  • Water is as hard as land for a certain impact speed and higher, so no advantage from water. I think the video is rather silly. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Nov 10 '17 at 09:27
  • By the way, paraglider pilots generally hold their aerobatic practice sessions over water not land. Of course a rescue boat is standing by. And they are most likely dealing with a partially collapsed parachute, not pure freefall. – quiet flyer Oct 30 '19 at 23:57

6 Answers6

143

If your parachute fails to open entirely you are almost certainly extremely dead no matter where you land, however occasionally people do survive. A partial failure of a chute is much more survivable. You will be coming down much faster than you would with a good chute, and you are going to get injured, probably badly. Think broken legs and arms with neck or back trauma. You may sustain a concussion as well, and you will certainly go into shock.

If you come down in the water you will be injured and unable to keep yourself afloat, and it will be much harder to rescue you. On land help will be much closer and, and as @RonBeyer says in comments, you can't drown on land.

Land has features which may help you survive: trees, vegetation, hay bales, crops, snow, and many other things may cushion your impact enough to make the difference between life and death. Water is the same wherever you go, and doesn't have nearly enough give to cushion an impact.

GdD
  • 53,842
  • 6
  • 147
  • 212
  • 25
    Some statistics: 100% (albeit being a small sample) of the persons listed here landed on land https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fall_survivors – Viktor Mellgren Nov 08 '17 at 15:54
  • 51
    @ViktorMellgren that's because it's possible to land on something yielding or on a steep smooth slope that can decelerate you at a survivable rate. At freefall speeds water might as well be concrete for all the yield it can give. – Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight Nov 08 '17 at 16:00
  • 15
    might be good to add how hitting water at speed compares to hitting something solid – Michael Nov 08 '17 at 17:42
  • 3
    @Michael That depends very much on the attitude at which you enter the water. – reirab Nov 08 '17 at 17:54
  • 13
  • Fantastic QA! I was just wondering - there was always a myth that the one-and-only Evil Knievil wanted to jump with no parachute, and then steer himself (apparently) to fly fairly horizontally, then perhaps point "up" a bit, scrubbing speed, and top it all off by landing in a (say) big hay stack. Is this completely nonsensical? Or in fact - would a sky diver in the worst case of a total failure, indeed try to "swoop" (at precisely the right time!) so as to trade away some vertical speed? Or again, is it utter hooey?? Cheers! – Fattie Nov 08 '17 at 23:20
  • I think it's good to consider the maximum time you have if you land on water. You probably won't be swimming after landing so you got about 3 minutes before you go unconscious. You may end up sinking, and after 6-7 minutes you're gonna have permanent brain damage. It's just a bad deal to go for water if you need a parachute. – Nelson Nov 09 '17 at 07:16
  • 2
    @Fattie sounds like hooey. My only reference though is that people using wingsuits also have normal chutes to deploy for landing. They can't go slow enough or horizontal enough to land without. – Baldrickk Nov 09 '17 at 09:46
  • 2
    Knievil came up with all sorts of schemes, some he was serious about and some he wasn't @Fattie. I suspect this is one he came up with to keep people thinking how crazy he was, he was a calculated risk taker and I don't imagine he liked how that one stacked up. – GdD Nov 09 '17 at 09:50
  • @ViktorMellgren my favorite part is how they separated the names out by letters, just to keep it more clear – Brian Leishman Nov 09 '17 at 20:28
  • Another factor--water is featureless. Land sometimes has features that will ease your landing. Look at Nicholas Alkemade--by pure luck he hit a pine tree & snow, leaving his injuries limited to a sprain (and even that's not certain as it could have happened before he jumped.) He literally walked away from a 3 mile fall. – Loren Pechtel Nov 10 '17 at 02:41
  • @Fattie - a no parachute wingsuit landing has been done, landing on "a stack of 18,600 cardboard boxes, 350ft long, 50ft wide and 12ft deep" - http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/a-2400ft-jump-on-to-a-pile-of-boxes-with-no-parachute-what-could-go-wrong-for-stuntman-gary-connery-7778794.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRB-woVjlFY – armb Nov 10 '17 at 14:56
  • And on water: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2xmAWS4akE – armb Nov 10 '17 at 14:57
  • utterly amazing: youtube.com/watch?v=dRB-woVjlFY – Fattie Nov 10 '17 at 15:54
  • Whether Evel Knievel could have come up with something close enough to a modern wingsuit to allow that in the 1970s, who knows. Maybe not, which is why he never tried it.... – armb Nov 10 '17 at 17:48
  • At terminal velocity, water is almost as hard as concrete due to the fact that it doesn't compress, (well technically does but only negligibly.) You wouldn't want to land on concrete, would you? Secondly, as mentioned earlier, you could very easily drown. – samdoj Nov 10 '17 at 19:08
  • 3
    @armb - wingsuits go all the way back to the 1930's. Dying due to parachute failure at the end of a wingsuit flight dates to approximately the same time period. – Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні Nov 11 '17 at 22:22
  • @samdoj - if nothing else, hitting land may kill you quicker than hitting water. Some things you really don't want to drag out... – Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні Nov 11 '17 at 22:39
  • You could potentially keep yourself afloat, but you'd have to ditch your gear first. And quickly. That's a much bigger ask than merely floating in place until help comes. – aroth Nov 12 '17 at 13:12
  • @BobJarvis Wingsuits date back to 1912. But I still think Evel successfully using one without a parachute in the 1970s would require something closer to the modern one used in 2012 to do actually that. "In the mid-1990s, the modern wingsuit was developed": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingsuit_flying#History – armb Nov 13 '17 at 10:17
  • @BrianLeishman It is funny, but it's not anything anybody did on purpose. It's just what MediaWiki servers do with category pages. – T.J.L. Oct 31 '19 at 17:38
  • Extremely dead? So is that different from just regular dead? – Romeo_4808N Jan 31 '20 at 22:15
  • 1
    As anyone who has watched The Princess Bride would know, there are different levels of dead @CarloFelicione! – GdD Jan 31 '20 at 23:17
83

From a jump instructor, whose chute failed:

You landed in a blackberry bush, right? Yeah, it was less than a meter high and it wasn't super dense but it was better than hitting than the hard floor or hitting the lake. If I'd landed in the water I would have been knocked out just the same and broken the exact same bones. But my lungs would have collapsed and I would have drowned, because I was unconscious.

So this instructor had studied the problem enough to know that he didn't want to land in the water. He is not alone.

Also, years ago, I remember meeting a woman who was in the Army, doing a jump in North Carolina, and her chutes failed to open. She targeted a pile of hay, and survived.

The terminal velocity of the human body is about 120 MPH, and may be less if the jumper can increase their drag. Picking the right landing spot, such as soft vegetation, appears to increase survivability. Landing in water seems to cause complications with breathing and also with the ability to swim if limbs are broken or consciousness is lost.

A co-worker was a base commander when a F-4 went down and the pilot's chute failed to deploy in the North Sea at night. The pilot survived, and his injuries were limited to compressed discs and hypothermia. It took them about 70 minutes to fish out the pilot.

I do not know what the statistics are for water landings vs land landings, but it is generally recognized that a land touchdown provides more opportunity to steer to favorable soft targets.

Addendum: This fall (2020), I met an Army ranger who had a chute and backup fail on a jump. He targeted a pine tree, and tried to hit close to the trunk at the top. He was scratched up and bruised, but walked out. His situation happened 5 years ago in Northern Michigan. He has given several talks on it, but I have not located any video's.

mongo
  • 17,746
  • 31
  • 82
  • 74
    "Landing in water seems to cause complications with breathing..." Excellent!! – FreeMan Nov 08 '17 at 18:06
  • 4
    While water displaces nicely at swimming displacement velocities, it does have about the same inertial mass as the body striking it, and there is further displacement resistance. So a body traveling at 120 MPH hitting water meets an effective mass with greater net force than if it just met a similar piece of jelly (water) in free air which could deform and spread with only the resistance and inertial properties of air. Instead it has the inertial properties of the water around it, and the compressibility of water, rather than air. Bottom line, it's a bigger ouch. – mongo Nov 08 '17 at 20:56
  • I'd have thought trying to aim for a tree or forrest type of area would be better than land or sea? – mickburkejnr Nov 09 '17 at 17:31
  • 1
    @mickburkejnr Well, you'll generally find more trees and forests on land than on water. Ergo, first step is to aim towards land instead of water (in case e.g. you are above water and can't make out features in the landscape, it's best to get closer to the land before trying to aim for a specific spot on the land). – Delioth Nov 10 '17 at 18:01
  • I can back up the "pinetree theory": a person I know had a double failure of chutes about 20 years back. Luckily the airfield was surrounded by thickish pine tree forrest, and as it happened, the lucky bastard was fell through treetops onto a soft moss bed. You be your bottom dollar the terrified frieds did not believe what they saw when they rushed towards the "crash site", and the victim walked out of the forest with own two feet... I do not recall that the choice of landingsite was deliberate. I kinda have a hard time believing one would be able to aim too good at terminal velocity... – Jpe61 Dec 16 '20 at 18:05
  • ...so to aim close to tree trunk is a loooong shot, better just aim for the forest and hope for the best. The thing with pine branches is, that they crack rather easily, absorbing energy. Even in the case of pines hitting a thick, sturdy branch would definitely kill you, so very close to trunk would be fatal. Smaller branches you just pick up on your way down, losing your speed as momentum shifts to the branches and is lost into snapping them. Best case scenario - you accumulate a pine branch cushion on your way down – Jpe61 Dec 16 '20 at 18:12
27

An impact on land has a small chance of survival, an impact on unbroken water has none.

Falling from thousands of feet without a parachute is very likely a death sentence, but there are a handful of cases in which people have survived. In nearly all of them, it is because the person landed in particularly hospitable terrain, like hitting a number of branches on the way down to slow their fall, or rolling down a steep hill.

All of these stories have one thing in common: slowly breaking your fall

What kills you isn't really the impact, it's the deceleration of the impact. You could be slowly lowered from 10,000 feet by a crane and you'd be just fine. But when you fall from great height, you build up a lot of speed as energy that has to be dissipated upon impact, and if it can't be dissipated into your environment it gets dissipated into you.

Your body can absorb reasonable impacts from reasonable heights, but it has limits. When you slowly break your fall, you're essentially splitting one unsurvivable impact into many smaller survivable ones.

What does this all have to do with land versus water?

Land has terrain. Water doesn't. If you hit the side of a grassy hill and roll down hundreds of feet before finally stopping, you've dissipated all this energy into the hill, while splitting up all the impact on your body.

If you hit the water, it really doesn't matter whether it's hot water, cold water, saltwater, freshwater, mineral water, branded water. It's going to be a very, very hard impact, and it's going to be head-on, because water is always level to gravity, so no hills or angles to dissipate energy. Water's very high surface tension means that at speed, the surface of water behaves much like the surface of a brick.

In Short:

Avoid water if you're falling without a parachute. Aim for trees. Or hills. Or peat bogs. Or giant trampolines. Or something that isn't flat and uniform like water.

Camille Goudeseune
  • 11,726
  • 1
  • 42
  • 78
TheEnvironmentalist
  • 1,377
  • 2
  • 12
  • 17
  • 44
    It is not surface tension that causes the surface of the water to behave like a brick, it is the quasi-incompressibility of water. The body hitting the water will generate a large pressure at the impact point, but the water itself won't compress to absorb the shock. Surface tension force, which scales as $$gamma/R$$ where R is the radius of curvature and $\gamma$ the surface tension of a fluid, has nothing to do with it since the radius of curvature of a flat surface is, by definition, infinite – BlaB Nov 08 '17 at 21:45
  • 1
    @BlaB Interesting. Feel free to edit my answer with the extra information :) – TheEnvironmentalist Nov 08 '17 at 21:48
  • 12
    If you hit water with substantial numbers of air bubbles in it, you get much the same cushioning effect as if you'd hit a tree or a haystack. Of course, conveniently-placed waterfalls or swimming pools filled with seltzer water are significantly less common than conveniently-placed forests... – Mark Nov 08 '17 at 22:11
  • 10
    "...slowly lowered from 10,000 feet by a crane and you'd be just fine if you didn't suffocate on your way down." There's plenty of oxygen for survival at 10k feet. – Wayne Conrad Nov 08 '17 at 22:19
  • @Mark I did think of that haha. That's the exact reason I said "branded water" instead of "seltzer water". I've heard a trip down Niagara Falls is surprisingly survivable because of how aerated the water is, though as you mention, not very common in the grand scheme of Earth's bodies of water – TheEnvironmentalist Nov 08 '17 at 22:44
  • @WayneConrad Another great point. Feel free to edit that '10,000 feet' to '35,000 feet', which is more accurate anyway for falls from a commercial airliner at cruise altitude – TheEnvironmentalist Nov 08 '17 at 22:46
  • @BlaB to Incompressibility I would also add density. – 2NinerRomeo Nov 08 '17 at 22:50
  • That suggests heavy waves might be at least somewhat better than still water, if suitable land isn't available. So, given the choice between open ocean and protected harbor, that favors the ocean. – Phil Miller Nov 09 '17 at 01:35
  • @Novelocrat if you do survive, heavy waves may make it unlikely to be for long. – Baldrickk Nov 09 '17 at 09:50
  • Nitpick: water is always level to gravity, so no hills or angles to dissipate energy, ever. Waves. They might not be any help, but they exist and aren't level – Chris H Nov 09 '17 at 14:02
  • What if it's soft water instead of hard water? :P – guenthmonstr Nov 10 '17 at 17:51
  • How? Just how the hell? If I landed on the water feet first? Are you telling a needle with enough attached weight to fall at the same speed or higher would hit the water and and break in two or bend without penetrating at impact? I find this very hard to believe. I'm landing on water. – Seph Mar 06 '19 at 19:56
  • 3
    @Seph We'll send our condolences. – T.J.L. Oct 31 '19 at 17:41
2

At a freefall speed of 120MPH, water would provide a drag of about 1000 Gs which would be the same as hitting the ground and stopping in 6 inches (15cm). Better than concrete but still not survivable.

user31011
  • 854
  • 5
  • 6
0

At 200 km/ h, 120 mph, the top speed a human body can reach in free fall, water surface could be as hard as a brick wall. I wonder if there's any difference in reaching the water in vertical or horizontal, or if sending something before you to break the surface will reduce the impact. I've read about two men during WW II who survived a fall from thousands of feet without a parachute, one fell into the high slope of an snowy mountain, he had almost every bone broken, but the soviets who recovered him were so amazed of his survival, that cared of him until full recovery. Another was falling, when suddenly he felt something at his reach, and hold it with his arms, it were the legs of another airman who was parachuted; even with the higher speed of two in a single parachute, the damned man survived after releasing the saving legs a bit above ground.

Old Spanish joke is about someone falling without a parachute: as aproaching ground, counts the distance left: 1 km, 500 m, 100 m, when at 50 cm over ground, comments: 'This is a small step, I'll jump donw from it without danger' Aufwiedersehen. Blessings +

Urquiola
  • 1,631
  • 17
  • 21
-6

If you see a large water body around you, direct yourself to that.

Carry something which can cause a large concussive force just as you're about to impact. Say you're about to hit the water, you lob in object X which causes a large boom. The concussive force of the blast pushes you back and cushions you using the water as a "sofa" of sorts. You have to time this perfectly though, too soon and you miss it, too late and you get caught in it yourself. You can always try practicing by jumping from a low enough bridge into the water and trying, have enough health insurance and you'll be fine.

  • 1
    A "lob" of an object toward the ground while falling at terminal velocity seems somewhat difficult to achieve. – Ken Williams Nov 11 '17 at 04:57
  • 4
    Didn't Mythbusters do this in 2003? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2003_season)#Hammer_Bridge_Drop Yes, yes they did. – Criggie Nov 11 '17 at 23:12
  • Its also covered in this question on Worldbuilding https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/15661/ – Criggie Nov 11 '17 at 23:12
  • @Criggie According to the linked description, the mythbusters episode was throwing a hammer at the water to "break the surface tension" rather than throwing an explosive at the water and using the blast force to provide extra drag. In theory, causing the air to move rapidly upward a bit before you hit the water would indeed slow you down. Of course, you will run into the problem that Ken mentions: the object you throw down won't be moving downward much faster than you are, so it's quite likely to explode right beside you and reduce, not increase, your chances of survival. – reirab Nov 12 '17 at 08:43
  • @reirab Besides, what's the chance you're carrying a suitable explosive when your chute fails, you can reach for it in time AND happen to get the timing just right? Stick to land, water is deadly. – Mast Nov 12 '17 at 15:38
  • I do consider this answer dangerous. What's the consensus on dangerous answers, should they be flagged for removal? – Mast Nov 12 '17 at 15:38
  • 1
    @Mast It seems borderline ironic. I'm not sure the OP is really serious about it or it is just joking. – LorenzoDonati4Ukraine-OnStrike Nov 12 '17 at 19:46
  • @Mast I take it as more of a joke than being serious. Maybe I'm just too optimistic or am underestimating how dumb people can be, but I don't think there's too much risk of someone reading this answer and then trying this. – reirab Nov 12 '17 at 21:20