• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Oops, darn it...

Is it just my computer but it is downloading that ASHX file not opening it in the browser. Looks like it is intended to be a PDF.
 
After all tale offs say OUT LOUD! : "Positive Rate Gear up"
Before landing: "This is a WATER landing GEAR UP"
OR "This is a LAND landing GEAR DOWN"

THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THESE ACCIDENTS!

It will not surprise me to learn that this airplane had one of those electronic low altitude gear warning announcing systems installed.
 
Well, it’s only a matter of time before the insurance industry decides that amphians are uninsurable. And, it’s pretty obvious that many of the pilots flying these things are singularly unqualified to assume the responsibility of flying an amphibious airplane.

You can verbalize gear position, and that’s a good idea, but unfortunately, we’ve seen too many cases where that was done, but the intended associated ACTION was not carried out.

Verbalization is a very good plan, but I maintain that mounting mirrors that permit VISUALIZING the actual gear position, then developing the discipline to do so prior to every landing is a better plan than a “bitching Betty” which is easily ignored and/or suppressed, or a laser that tells you what you’re over ON APPROACH, and not necessarily what you’re about to land on. Those “gadgets” are well intended, but don’t seem to be doing the job.

Oh, and then there’s the matter of training. I’m amazed the insurance industry hasn’t implemented a “jet-like” requirement for amphib already.

Unfortunately, the gent flying this airplane is going to carry a terrible burden the rest of his days.

Terrible deal, all around.

MTV
 
Sometimes really smart, capable human beings make mistakes. The others pontificate on the internet. :roll:

Condolences to all those close to the man lost.
 
Well, it’s only a matter of time before the insurance industry decides that amphibians are uninsurable.

Unfortunately, the gent flying this airplane is going to carry a terrible burden the rest of his days.

Terrible deal, all around.

MTV

In many ways I agree with all you say, your full post, but I watch to the best we can all events that happen considering general aviation accidents and incidents.

I see a considerably higher percentage of Beech Bonanza and Baron landing gear retractions during roll out than I see failures to select the proper gear position on amphibious aircraft.

On the Beechcraft they have added a squat switch to one gear leg, but that has not stopped the inadvertent problem. With the gear and flap handles installed such that a simple dyslexic moment allows setting the hull on it's belly when the intention was to simply stow the flaps.

Then consider the true number of wrong gear position landings in land planes.

I consider all seaplane operations to take more conscious effort to properly conduct than just flying a common performance aircraft, yet it is the more common aircraft that has more insurable events.

Might just be me but I do not see amphibian aircraft operations at undue risk as far as rule makers or insurance are concerned.
 
Sometimes really smart, capable human beings make mistakes. The others pontificate on the internet. :roll:

Condolences to all those close to the man lost.
I have been preaching about this issue for decades prior to the internet being invented. Pontificating on the internet is just a continuation of an age old pilot inattention issue.
 
Hull insurance on an amphib is at least double or more from wheel gear based on the last quote I got just for lower 48.
And if one adds in Alaska location to the equation not sure what it would be, other than really expensive just to have amphibs.
This one is obvious on the cause. Sad deal as MTV said, pilot will live with this mistake forever.
John
 
Maybe the take away from this accident and the Otter-Beaver mid air last week should revolve around why two rear seat occupants died from apparently not being able to egress the airplanes while upside down in the water when other occupants did successfully egress. There are a couple of other accidents I can think of off the top of my head that shared that same result.
 
Stewart,
Hard to know why the rear seat occupants cannot get out when cockpit occupants do. But when one lands on the water with amphib wheels down it is an immediate stop and violent flip upside down. The rear of the aircraft may get a more violent flip being back further than center of airplane? If seatbelt not really tight, who knows what the effect is on the body with the violent actions of quick stop and instant inversion. Plus being underwater and upside down in seconds.
Tough ride to be in.
John
 
In these recent accidents with loss of life and injury there are other aspects to consider.

In the mid air, the Beaver was cut apart by the propeller from the Otter. The cabin of the aircraft came down in multiple sections. The poor souls had no chance.

In the Otter, with those injuries were they all wearing their restraints? I doubt it. Granted that plane had pretty high deceleration as it broke free of it's floats, but that deceleration is spread over time which in some ways reduces injury to the passengers.

A week later the Beaver tripped on it's own float. This plane was carrying a load of freight as well as a passenger. How well retained was that freight? Jumping to conclusion I expect that freight came forward into the seating area. We should wait for the truth about that.

And in the most recent with the 185, that was not a high energy deceleration. Granted we do not know what level of agility the soul who passed had, but again, was he properly restrained? One does not need much of an injury along with the disorientation of the tumble to reduce one's chances to get out.

It is very sad to see injury and death but many times there are complexities that cause most of the personal loss beyond just being in a crash.

Sorry if this post was too graphic but there are reasons beyond the simple view why there is more injury or loss of life when something goes wrong.
 
….One does not need much of an injury along with the disorientation of the tumble to reduce one's chances to get out...... there are reasons beyond the simple view why there is more injury or loss of life when something goes wrong.

stearman crash.jpg

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2019/04/boeing-a75n1pt-17-stearman-n68825.html

I'll testify to the comment about getting out after an injury.
I was the passenger in this Stearman crash, about 3-1/2 weeks ago.
Cruising along at 1200', about 4 or 5 miles from the departure airport,
when oil starting spewing out and streaming back from the engine.
Total failure a minute or so after that.
Turns out the crankshaft broke right where it goes into the master rod.
No where good to land, the pilot (my buddy) was trying for the only unobstructed section of beach in sight.
He made a hard turn to line up to land and we dipped a wingtip in the water,
which hooked the airplane around and stobbed us into the beach.
From flying speed to a sudden stop in about 5 feet.

We both suffered minor injuries, he was able to hop out right away.
I wasn't- besides the center section coming down on top of me, I took a helluva lick to the ribs from the stick (I think)
and wasn't up to doing too much except sit there and hurt.
Turns out all I really got was bruised ribs & some torn between-the-ribs cartilage and a broken hand.
But if we'd have caught fire (plenty of fuel pouring out) or went upside in the water,
I doubt I could have gotten out.

If we'd been maybe 20 feet higher in that turn, it probably woulda been fine--
roll the wings level, touch down, and roll out.

But sometimes it works out-- sometimes it doesn't.
 

Attachments

  • stearman crash.jpg
    stearman crash.jpg
    83.6 KB · Views: 187
I bet you still feel that one. Damn,

There recently was another Bipe, I think down FLA way where the wing came down. If I recall they cut through the side to get the front seater out.
 
The energy is really dependent on touchdown speed. I was quite slow on touchdown, (small lake so was doing a short field style arrival), and the flip was very slow. I had plenty of time to cuss, think about where my shotgun was so I could use it to blow my stupid head off, etc. If your touchdown is on the fast side, or if you hit something, the flip can be much more violent.
Just my somewhat informed opinion.

Bill
 
A 3 second deceleration from 60 or 70 is a slow deceleration when it comes to a "crash".
Back in Y2K I made a mistake with one of my race cars at a local hillclimb, that was 67mph to nearly stopped in two feet. Time for the initial deceleration would be measured in hundredths, my data logging did not measure it. Add to that the car deflected vertically in a roll with the first impact on the driver side roof, going into the second roll I blacked out.
I came to with the car resting against a tree on the PAX side with the rear overhanging an embankment.
Initial G load was determined to be in the 60G range, the initial hit was up against the rollcage right at my feet.
I had some sore ribs for a few weeks, both sides of ribs. Laying down to sleep was not an option for some time.
 
In these recent accidents with loss of life and injury there are other aspects to consider.

In the mid air, the Beaver was cut apart by the propeller from the Otter. The cabin of the aircraft came down in multiple sections. The poor souls had no chance.

In the Otter, with those injuries were they all wearing their restraints? I doubt it. Granted that plane had pretty high deceleration as it broke free of it's floats, but that deceleration is spread over time which in some ways reduces injury to the passengers.

A week later the Beaver tripped on it's own float. This plane was carrying a load of freight as well as a passenger. How well retained was that freight? Jumping to conclusion I expect that freight came forward into the seating area. We should wait for the truth about that.

And in the most recent with the 185, that was not a high energy deceleration. Granted we do not know what level of agility the soul who passed had, but again, was he properly restrained? One does not need much of an injury along with the disorientation of the tumble to reduce one's chances to get out.

It is very sad to see injury and death but many times there are complexities that cause most of the personal loss beyond just being in a crash.

Sorry if this post was too graphic but there are reasons beyond the simple view why there is more injury or loss of life when something goes wrong.

With no specific reference to any of the recent accidents but related in general terms and a personal point of interest.... there's a reason I added shoulder harnesses to the rear seat positions in my Cessna. My Cubs, too. Gotta be conscious and have your faculties if you need to get out in a hurry. Throughout my daughter's time at home she occupied the front seat and wife took the back. We always thought that was the best placement for mom to assist kiddo in an egress event. One of the things we taught the kid was to NOT slide the seat back. That effectively impedes the rear seater in a Skywagon. Just my own thoughts after another very sad accident. Nothing more. That was a spectacular 185, by the way. One of the nicest I've ever seen.
 
We value your perspective on this one Bill. :oops: Take a look at the speed of that 185 vs whatever your's was in the Cub. And notice that it did not take long for the pilot to extricate himself. I had a high time well qualified float pilot friend who did this in a 185. His passenger escaped, he did not. He apparently was knocked out and drowned, she was not. She stated that as they touched down he said "OH Sh..!" I have also seen the salvage of a 185 which did the same thing. The windshield was smashed and the top of the stabilizer was flattened from the water impact. There are so many little differences which can make for different results. I sincerely hope that I am never able to give a first person report.
 
If I recall correctly there are blocking options for restricting front seat travel in Skywagons. Full forward and I would have had difficulty exiting if upward and out movement was limited. I flew like that but in retrospect less forward travel might have made departing easier especially with an object jammed against the rear of the seat. Then there's the shoulder belt(s) to slip out of on the way.

Gary
 
In many ways I agree with all you say, your full post, but I watch to the best we can all events that happen considering general aviation accidents and incidents.

I see a considerably higher percentage of Beech Bonanza and Baron landing gear retractions during roll out than I see failures to select the proper gear position on amphibious aircraft.

On the Beechcraft they have added a squat switch to one gear leg, but that has not stopped the inadvertent problem. With the gear and flap handles installed such that a simple dyslexic moment allows setting the hull on it's belly when the intention was to simply stow the flaps.

Then consider the true number of wrong gear position landings in land planes.

I consider all seaplane operations to take more conscious effort to properly conduct than just flying a common performance aircraft, yet it is the more common aircraft that has more insurable events.

Might just be me but I do not see amphibian aircraft operations at undue risk as far as rule makers or insurance are concerned.

The difference: Numbers. Compare the number of Bonanzas, or all retractable gear aircraft with single pilot crews, to the numbers of amphibians. Amphibs represent a minuscule number compared to just Bonanzas, let alone everything else. As a consequence, it doesn’t take many of these accidents to make a really ugly insurance situation. As John noted, amphibs are already horrendously expensive to insure. As the actuarial continue to build, those rates aren’t going to decrease.

The other HUGE difference: Injuries. In amphibs, landing in the water gear down will almost certainly result in a very difficult egress, whereas most gear ups on a runway don’t result in injuries or difficult egress. There are, of course, exceptions.

One more issue: Location. Whereas retractable gear up landings generally occur at airports, amphib gear down in water accidents often happen far from an airport. Many airports have fire, crash and rescue. Not so much out where most folks take their amphibious Aircraft.

Stewart makes a good point regarding rear seats. How many seaplanes (or wheelplanes) out there are not equipped with shoulder harnesses in the back seats? That can be a recipe for disaster if a water egress is needed. It’s one thing to successfully overcome disorientation after an accident and find a door, release your belt, etc. But escape is highly unlikely if you’re unconscious from bashing your head on the pilot or copilot seat back.

MTV
 
MTV/Mike is right on amphib insurance. Not many of them and risk is very high per Mike's outlines, exactly why insurance companies want the high rates.
When I had Widgeons I could not get hull insurance at a rate that was even close to acceptable, so only had liability. Widgeons when landing in the water with gear down instantly rips the nose right off and it goes upside down too. Friend of mine did it, passenger only got broken ankle, pilot who had Widgeons for years was pretty embarrassed. Just took off form land strip and landed in water. Under rebuild now. Most amphibs do that instant turnover, thus the expensive insurance risk/high rates. And throw in Alaska it is pretty high risk.
Had my Kodiak on amphibs, insurance quote was $22,000, $9700 on wheels for example. I sold the amphibs as could not justify the added cost or need for them. Besides trying to find a hangar it would even fit in!
John
 
The video of the Beaver flipping over in post#902 is instructive. Landing on floats with any crab or slip will scare the bejesus out of you as touchdown straightens you out, lightning fast. There is no reaction time or controllability. The Beaver had a little too much and its fate was sealed.

Prayers for all those involved.
 
Last edited:
Passengers are sometimes minimally asked or instructed in the use of seat belts and harnesses. Put them on - wear them - any questions? I've yet to ride in a Part 91 or 135 land or sea where removal of the setup was demonstrated and reinforced and why that's important...same for door egress although the latter is sometimes mentioned. I was guilty of that with passengers but in later years after upset training I shared what I could before flight. Something for all of us to consider. Dealing with restraints when shocked is difficult. Rear passengers can encounter and get tangled with front seat restraints so note that in the briefing.

Gary
 
From AIN -

The release Wednesday of the preliminary report for the NTSB’s investigation of the May 13 fatal midair near Ketchikan, Alaska between a float-equipped de Havilland DHC-2 Beaver and a float-equipped de Havilland DHC-3 Turbine Otter was accompanied by Safety Board criticism of for-hire operations.

Both aircraft involved in the accident were operating under Part 135 in VMC. “This is one in a string of recent accidents involving for-hire aircraft,” the Safety Board said. “So was the Beaver that crashed Monday in Alaska and the helicopter that crashed in Hawaii April 29.”

Probable causes have not been determined in any of the accidents cited, but NTSB chairman Robert Sumwalt said, “Each crash underscores the urgency of improving the safety of charter flights by implementing existing NTSB safety recommendations. The need for those improvements is why the NTSB put Part 135 aircraft flight operations on the 2019-2020 Most Wanted list of transportation safety improvements.”

The NTSB’s recommendations call on Part 135 operators to implement safety management systems, record and analyze flight data, and ensure pilots receive controlled flight into terrain-avoidance training. “A customer who pays for a ticket should trust that the operator is using the industry’s best practices when it comes to safety,’’ said Sumwalt.

Both aircraft were transporting passengers to Ketchikan from the Misty Fjords National Monument area. Flight track data revealed the Otter was traveling southwest about 3,700 feet msl and gradually descending at 126 knots when it crossed the east side of the George Inlet. The Beaver was traveling west/southwest about 3,350 feet msl at 107 knots when it crossed the east side of the George Inlet. The airplanes collided at about 3,350 feet msl near the west side of the George Inlet. The Otter pilot said he was maneuvering the airplane to show passengers a waterfall when the collision occurred.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
 

Attachments

  • VALDEZ+PLANE+CRASH+COURTESY+US+COAST+GUARDCropped.jpg
    VALDEZ+PLANE+CRASH+COURTESY+US+COAST+GUARDCropped.jpg
    66.6 KB · Views: 216
Back
Top