Ullswater Lake Maule pilot not guilty
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if I had this pilots mentality, knowing how much big surface debris there can be on Ullswater and how massively active the military low flying has been recently, I definitely would not be hanging around where they were.
So we appear to have a 50/50 stalemate:
50% of us are killjoys and 50% are cowboys!
I think the long term outcome for me is that I really want to go fly a Maule with big tyres on
So we appear to have a 50/50 stalemate:
50% of us are killjoys and 50% are cowboys!
I think the long term outcome for me is that I really want to go fly a Maule with big tyres on
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the long term outcome for me is that I really want to go fly a Maule with big tyres on
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pilot may be skillful etc., but it is a really dumb thing to do if it wasn't for a stunt (filming etc.,) with various permissions and waivers / risk assessments in place. One slight miscalculation and they/he/her are suddenly upside down, under water, in the middle of a freezing lake, at best needing the assistance of the emergency services. But even if they have done it 100 times they open themselves up to prosecution.
Being N registered, I wouldn't be at all surprised if some enforcement action came from this. I could see a prosecution based upon:
Especially if a passenger was carried then this would be an open and shut case in court. They often apply this to low flying type of incidents too and penalties can include certificate suspension or revocation. I am sure that in this case it would be a complete revocation if a pax was being carried.
Of course they might have been suffering from cab ice and were intending to put the aeroplane down in the lake, but then the engine picked up and the climbed out. On the climb out they had the problem again and so decided to put the plane back down in the lake, only for the engine to pick up again....
Being N registered, I wouldn't be at all surprised if some enforcement action came from this. I could see a prosecution based upon:
§ 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
Of course they might have been suffering from cab ice and were intending to put the aeroplane down in the lake, but then the engine picked up and the climbed out. On the climb out they had the problem again and so decided to put the plane back down in the lake, only for the engine to pick up again....
I have utterly no intention of doing this, but I do wonder how difficult/dangerous it is.
1) on a taildragger the wheels are ahead of the CoG so lift from the water will increase the pitch of the aircraft creating a stable state.
2) the wheels are below the CoG of the aircraft, so drag will tend to pitch the aircraft down (unstable)
3) to some extent ground effect will help stop the aircraft sinking lower.
Presumably effect 1) predominates at the speeds they fly at, and if you hit the water softly enough there'll be a 'cushion' you have to break through before the water goes high enough (perhaps above the axles) before effect 2) predominates.
So how 'thick' would that imaginary cushion be? How much of a margin would there be between skimming over the surface and going 'kerplunk'? Without knowing that, I have no idea whether these pilots are being reckless or not.
1) on a taildragger the wheels are ahead of the CoG so lift from the water will increase the pitch of the aircraft creating a stable state.
2) the wheels are below the CoG of the aircraft, so drag will tend to pitch the aircraft down (unstable)
3) to some extent ground effect will help stop the aircraft sinking lower.
Presumably effect 1) predominates at the speeds they fly at, and if you hit the water softly enough there'll be a 'cushion' you have to break through before the water goes high enough (perhaps above the axles) before effect 2) predominates.
So how 'thick' would that imaginary cushion be? How much of a margin would there be between skimming over the surface and going 'kerplunk'? Without knowing that, I have no idea whether these pilots are being reckless or not.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably the best way of describing it is in the same way as it was described/demonstrated to me:
Soft ground - the aircraft will sink easier the slower that you taxi.
Going through isolated known soft patches one keeps the speed up to stop getting stuck.
Aquaplaning - throwing a stone across a pond. The faster the stone is travelling -it will not sink.
Aircraft tyres are no different. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...91071109,d.ZWU
Soft ground - the aircraft will sink easier the slower that you taxi.
Going through isolated known soft patches one keeps the speed up to stop getting stuck.
Aquaplaning - throwing a stone across a pond. The faster the stone is travelling -it will not sink.
Aircraft tyres are no different. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...91071109,d.ZWU
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keep the speed up the tyres will 'plane across the surface. But I suspect the other factor is a very delicate hand on the elevator to prevent the wheels being forced down into the water, yet kept in contact with it.
I've obviously never done this, but I'd imagine it's a bit like a 'wheeler' landing but done VERY carefully!
I've obviously never done this, but I'd imagine it's a bit like a 'wheeler' landing but done VERY carefully!
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shaggy, whilst the manoeuvre of skiing across the water looks precarious, it's
not that hard or skilful really. It just takes the balls to do it for the first time.
In a slow 80 knot cruise, if you touch the water harder than you anticipated
you will simply bounce back up in the air in much the same way as touching tarmac. It's really as simple as that.
not that hard or skilful really. It just takes the balls to do it for the first time.
In a slow 80 knot cruise, if you touch the water harder than you anticipated
you will simply bounce back up in the air in much the same way as touching tarmac. It's really as simple as that.
Moderator
It has been pointed out how straight forward the waterskiing is - and it is. But as a roll is straight forward too, both have a horrible outcome if they go wrong.
Would a touch and go of a floatplane on a runway be more or less safe than a touch and go of the wheelplane on the water? Is there a better reason for doing one?
Would a touch and go of a floatplane on a runway be more or less safe than a touch and go of the wheelplane on the water? Is there a better reason for doing one?
Is there a better reason for doing one?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: SW Scotland
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
50% of us are killjoys and 50% are cowboys!
I think the long term outcome for me is that I really want to go fly a Maule with big tyres on
I think the long term outcome for me is that I really want to go fly a Maule with big tyres on
Seriously, there's been a lot of twaddle on this topic from folk who (if they have read and understood "Stick and Rudder") are much too well-informed to believe what they write. I think it's unfair to categorise such people as killjoys.
Landing with big tyres on water is as much part of a Maule's flight envelope as spinning a C150. Once one has thought about it one really doesn't need to keep head any further out of backside than when turning from base to final.
In case you want to try but can't find an experienced person to demonstrate, the following "how to suck eggs" advice should get you started:
1. Speed is survival - air-speed and gound-speed (or water speed on a river). When landing we are conditioned to pull the throttle. BAD MOVE!
2. Steer with rudder, not ailerons. For a Maule driver this advice is superfluous, because our "ailerons" are just wee trim tabs.
3. Avoid much of a crosswind, tailwind or windy/gusty conditions.
4. Add some aft C of G if you're going to run up onto a gravel bar or beach.
5. Climb straight ahead after take-off, especially on glassy water: https://vimeo.com/123221495
6. Avoid carb ice.
7. Observe local byelaws...
PM if you wish.
Enjoy your machine - and fly safely,
Peter.
Maule MX-7-180
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
N-Jacko has told us that waterskiing a Maule is akin to spinning a 150. I can point to the section in the POH for a 150 which describes how it is approved to be spun and the procedure. I've not seen the "waterskiing" procedure in the Maule POH.....
His home grown procedure seems to over look a few important details, which a float endoresed pilot would have been trained:
Survey the waterway for submerged or floating objects,
Wear sutiable life saving appearal, which depending upon temperature, might be more than just a life jacket,
Complete underwater egress training. 'Ever swim inside an inverted plane? It is suddenly very different inside, than the plane you thought you knew....
Assure that you meet the requirements for flight beyond gliding distance to shore,
Have a plan for engine failure at an inopportune time,
Have a suitably endorsed pilot's license (it does appear to be a deliberate water landing),
And, assure that the aircraft is insured for the intended operation - if you expect the insurer to pay for the plane. When I had to repeatedly fly my 150 out of gliding distance, I specifically insured it for that - so everyone had agreed in advance!
N-Jacko, I know that it is possible to waterski a Maule, is it possible to spin, loop and roll it? What about fly it overweight?
His home grown procedure seems to over look a few important details, which a float endoresed pilot would have been trained:
Survey the waterway for submerged or floating objects,
Wear sutiable life saving appearal, which depending upon temperature, might be more than just a life jacket,
Complete underwater egress training. 'Ever swim inside an inverted plane? It is suddenly very different inside, than the plane you thought you knew....
Assure that you meet the requirements for flight beyond gliding distance to shore,
Have a plan for engine failure at an inopportune time,
Have a suitably endorsed pilot's license (it does appear to be a deliberate water landing),
And, assure that the aircraft is insured for the intended operation - if you expect the insurer to pay for the plane. When I had to repeatedly fly my 150 out of gliding distance, I specifically insured it for that - so everyone had agreed in advance!
N-Jacko, I know that it is possible to waterski a Maule, is it possible to spin, loop and roll it? What about fly it overweight?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: SW Scotland
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
is it possible to spin, loop and roll it?
What about fly it overweight?
If you have any more questions of that nature, please ask someone else.
As a pilot with over 30 years experience I resisted the temptation to "water ski", although I had plenty of opportunities to indulge. Many of my colleagues did indulge. Part of my experience was 10 years ag flying (all aspects) and almost the same period bush flying. When you grow up, after seeing better pilots than ones self get the chop just doing the job, you think better of it.
There are two people in aviation. One is a person who tries to stay out of trouble. The other is a person who looks for trouble. Look for trouble long enough, you'll find it.
The above behavior is a sign of inexperience and or SPS. (small penis syndrome) It is not worth the risk and gives aviators a bad name.
There are two people in aviation. One is a person who tries to stay out of trouble. The other is a person who looks for trouble. Look for trouble long enough, you'll find it.
The above behavior is a sign of inexperience and or SPS. (small penis syndrome) It is not worth the risk and gives aviators a bad name.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prohibited. RTFM
Happily, their doing so has kept the insurance premiums low for responsible pilots, as the insurers can deny claims based upon flight manual prohibitions. Thus, I can think of a flight manual for a tail dragger which would prohibit waterskiing it by it's wording - though not that of Maule, I suppose...
I was taken for my first flight in a Harvard last week, and an Oshkosh "grand champion" one at that. After ten minutes of getting used to it, I was invited to roll, then loop it. I did a few times. As I flew it back toward the airport, and lowered the wheels, I thought to myself of someone wanting to waterski such a piece of history - can they not simply be happy with their opportunity to fly it at all? Or, to fly anything at all??
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are two people in aviation. One is a person who tries to stay out of trouble. The other is a person who looks for trouble. Look for trouble long enough, you'll find it.
The above behavior is a sign of inexperience and or SPS. (small penis syndrome) It is not worth the risk and gives aviators a bad name.
The above behavior is a sign of inexperience and or SPS. (small penis syndrome) It is not worth the risk and gives aviators a bad name.
Okay I take your point but sometimes we need a bit of colour in aviation instead of this over regulated disapproving society we have now.
While not approving of these antics maybe part of me likes the pushing boundaries in human nature and so admire those that push the boundaries (some have big DKs)
I saw a video of a guy who landed on top of a mountain covered in snow. Engine off he was pushed down a slope and accelerated till he had takeoff speed and then glided without engine power all the way to a landing at an airfield in the valley!
i also read of some pilot flying under all the bridges in London decades back! Every time I look at Tower bridge I get an urge
We need colour in this grey world
http://boingboing.net/2013/12/13/vid...-disaster.html
Maybe this guy suffers with little W syndrome ))
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 24th Apr 2015 at 12:27.
