>>1040837That is not what I said at all. I said sometimes it can be done safely. One is not inherently better than the other. It's completely situational.
How long have you been flying?
What's the biggest airplane you thing you could squeeze onto a road?
How much of a curve would you accept in a potential emergency landing road?
Do you think a controlled rough landing is worse than a high speed wing tip strike, or collision with an automobile?
In what situation would you need to crash your aircraft into a person, vehicle, or structure on the ground, And how would it be safer than not doing so?
Did you know powerlines, mailboxes, signs, telephone poles and cars are often found near roads?
Did you know those things are also often not found in farmer's fields? Did you know pilots flying heavy aircraft with some companies are briefed on the weight bearing capacity of fields based on the agricultural use of the field?
Did you know fields supporting livestock have no guaranteed weight bearing capacity, while those fields used to grow a crop are engineered to support harvesting tractors, and may be more well suited to an emergency landing for this reason?
Don't you think maybe if professional pilots are being briefed on this, fields are a serious option?
I would much rather take my chances with a field than a road.
>>1040800 "If you hit soft ground you're dead"
Who filled your head with that nonsense? Bumpy, yes. Jarring, maybe. Stuck, probably. Dead? No.
