Float plane down in Rotorua

[remoak]

"A floatplane rose just metres above the waters of Lake Rotorua on Tuesday afternoon before the engine failed moments after takeoff, forcing an emergency landing. The pilot and two passengers aboard the Volcanic Air Safaris Cessna 206 were shaken but unhurt.
The aircraft suffered moderate damage to its float struts in the landing, just after 1pm.
With help from Kawarau Jet the passengers and woman pilot were brought back to the airline's office within eight minutes of the landing, said Phill Barclay, managing director of Volcanic Air Safaris.
The aircraft may have risen about 4.5m above the water before it was forced to make the emergency landing about 500m from the shore, he said.
Barclay commended the pilot in getting the aircraft down safely. She had flown for Volcanic Air all summer and has been doing a good job.
"Well, the fact that nobody has a scratch on them or a bruise, I think that must talk for itself," Barclay said.
"With a floatplane you still have that water in front of you. It's been quite lucky. If it had been a land-based aeroplane it might have been a different scenario."
The company has to yet to debrief the pilot and fully assess what's happened. The cause of the engine failure is not yet known and the Civil Aviation Authority has been notified.
Barclay said he has managed Volcanic since 2002 and the company had carried substantial numbers of passengers without anything like this happening.
The two passengers - a couple from England in their 50s or early 60s - were on a scenic flight out to White Island, in the Bay of Plenty off Whakatane.
The tourists have two other scenic flights booked while they were in the country, Barclay said.
"I said to them hopefully they have a better result in the next one."
He could not say if they will try to see White Island with Volcanic Air again.
The aircraft has been towed back to shore and is now sitting in a hangar awaiting insurance assessment."

-via TVNZ.

One wonders why a simple landing back on the water wasn't possible... I mean from only 15 feet... but WTFDIK

[qtn]

Sounds as they were a little higher than that. Engine failure after take off can result in a hard landing.

[NZ X man]

Not on WATER!

[Beeroclock]

I once had a car that just as i got underway the engine would fail:(:( i just pulled over on the side of the road..Sounds to me almost the same thing!!

[Q300]

Cessna 206 ZK FEO belonging to Volcanic Air Safaris.
Landed hard on a wave, float struts are now broken.
No other injuries or fatalities (obviously, thankfully).
Sitting in a hangar at Rotorua Airport awaiting insurance assessment.

[RadioSaigon]

One wonders why a simple landing back on the water wasn't possible... I mean from only 15 feet... but WTFDIK...

One wonders, have you ever flown a floatplane? If you've ever seen one take off, you might have noticed that for the 1st 50 feet or so, the aircraft is barely 'flying'. It's more 'hanging off the prop'. That's because when she leaves the water she's really just going too damn quick for the floats to stay in the water whilst barely being fast enough yet for the wing to go flying.

That engine failure occurring where it did, happened at probably the most critical phase/moment of a float-planes flight. At that height & speed, about all the pilot could do would be suck the stick back, clench the butt and hope that when she stopped she was still relatively intact.

All-in-all, (no injuries/fatalities, minimal damage to the aircraft, not even wet feet...) I'd grade that one a pass with distinction.

[remoak]

Yes did a little float time in the distant past. The correct procedure for an engine failure at low altitude is check forward slightly and fly it on. If you "suck the stick back, clench the butt and hope that when she stopped she was still relatively intact", it will just fall out of the sky with the results that you see here.

Any time that you lose an engine in a single, a "pass" is when you get it down with no damage. That should be the result of any well-executed forced landing, accepting of course that you can't cover every eventuality. In our rush to be PC, we label any accident where people survived as a success, but all that does is cover up a lot of poor handling and bad decision making. We should all be a lot more critical than that, as it is the only way outcomes improve. Airlines worked this out years ago.

It is possible that the pilot in this case was just unlucky, but I give her 2/10 for flying skill and 10/10 for coolness and professionalism during the aftermath.

[nike]

Congratulations Remoak, you've successful joined that club here on PPRuNe.

[remoak]

Oh, you mean the club that thinks there should be high standards, and evaluations of performance that are be both meaningful and honest?

I'm VERY happy to be in that club.

Proscribed standards in NZ GA are a joke, and have been for years - ever since Swedavia. You only have to look at the accident stats in recent years to see the trend.

[werbil]

Just because the water is good where you break free of the water doesn't necessarily mean that its any good a couple of hundred meters further on.

If and only if the water is good I'm in that camp too. Commercial reality doesn't allow you to cancel a flight just because the aircraft might get damaged if the engine stops.

I'm certainly not commenting on the pilots ability as I have NFI what the conditions or situation was on the day.

[ZK-NSN]

Remoak - True, but Airlines generally wait until the outcome of a formal investigation before they start blaming people or questioning perfomance and ability.

You only have to look at the accident stats in recent years to see the trend.
The stats I have seen all point to a decease in the amount of accidents in NZ since 1999, which is pretty good considering the increase in Sport aviation in the last few years. And if your going to tell me that Air Operators accidents have increased in the last 10 years I would have to argue the point.

[qtn]

Radio saigon, youre not the grumpy dutchman are you??? Youre right. The floatplane is only just 'flying'. I dont even think from 100ft you would have time to do anything but put the stick forward as hard as you can to gain some flying speed and then pull it back as hard as you can to prevent it from nosing over. I doubt very much you would have time to think about waves.

Remoak, I give the pilot 9/10 for skill and ability and 20/10 for coolness.

[RadioSaigon]

Radio saigon, you're not the grumpy dutchman are you???

Nope, I know him though and have a suspicion I may know you too... that's for another day tho ;)

remoak: given that your float-time was some time ago, I'll cut you a little slack -but seriously, I would love to see how well you would do with a 206 on floats at 15 feet when it all goes quiet. I assure you, checking forward at that altitude, attitude and speed would have resulted in an airframe loss and at a minimum severe injuries to all aboard.

[Slater]

No, I think nike means the 'expert on everything and everyone's hero club'

[remoak]

NSN

Airlines generally wait until the outcome of a formal investigation before they start blaming people or questioning perfomance and ability.


No, they don't. The normal response to an accident where people are hurt, is to ground the pilots pending the outcome of the investigation (ie guilty until proven innocent), or at least until the end of an internal investigation.

More to the point, it is OK (although definitely not PC) to use a little common sense. So if, for example, a pilot takes off on a two hour flight with one hour of fuel in the tanks, do you really need a report to tell you what is blindingly obvious?

It is common on these fora for everyone to try and appear wise and measured by saying "wait for the report", but I'll bet most of them not only have an opinion, but openly share it amongst their peer group. But such is the nature of PPRuNe.

The stats I have seen all point to a decease

I'm not talking about the raw stats, I'm talking about the reasons behind them. I see an increase in poor judgement an inexplicable decision-making going on there. The raw stats don't really give a meaningful picture as the sample is too small, which I guess we should be thankful for. Having said that, there is noticeable upward trend since 2007.

[captain big balls]

I think REMOAK needs a hobby or a girlfriend, or both. Why even bother trying to judge an incident when you know none of the details whatsoever. Very strange character..........

I'll comment though in general terms...... you'd always check forward after an EFATO even at low altitude, to get sufficient airspeed to prevent a stall, followed by some back pressure of course on roundout. And the 206 will generally settle into a reasonable touchdown. However the front of an average wave that you can't avoid while doing this will ruin the experience and possibly the aircraft too.

[RadioSaigon]

I agree, checking forward is in most cases the absolutely essential and most correct thing to do... however, in the case of a 206 on floats at 15 feet you have no excess speed to protect, no altitude to convert and certainly no useful mass-energy. Once that engine fails you're already on the way down (15 feet remember), by the time you've reacted to the engine failure, you will most likely be under 10 feet from the water. At that point your only option is to start the flare. If you check forward, you will punt your floats (tips in the water 1st) with the inevitable consequence of flipping the aircraft and whatever damage occurs downstream of that to both airframe and pax.

[Q300]

Yep. Like I said - it landed hard on a hard wave. It was not the sort of landing Volcanic usually carry out. It could very easily have gone tits up. It did not.

I have never flown a floatplane from the pilots seat and even I can see that there isn't a lot you can do with a dead engine at 15 feet above a lake. :ugh:

[tio540]

Oh no, not the dreaded engine failure on the 2000 nm flat runway, into wind. :)

and without trees/terrain and stuff.

[remoak]

even I can see that there isn't a lot you can do with a dead engine at 15 feet above a lake

That's because there isn't a lot you need to do from 15 feet...

[er340790]

Had a similar situation here on Lake Superior last Summer.

As Werbil commented, takeoffs are made from the optimal point condition-wise - in my case from the shelter afforded by a long island. At around 60-70' the engine suffered a dramatic loss of power necessitating a straight-ahead landing. By that time, the shelter afforded by the island had been passed and the waves on the open lake were 3-4' rather than 12".

No damage fortunately. Cause was suspected fuel contamination, although the subsequent fuel system drain and clean revealed nothing.

I do now pay far more attention to the conditions in the area beyond the takeoff point. Lesson learned.

[werbil]

Fortunately I've never had one stop in a float plane.

The technique that I use is once free of the water is to build airspeed whilst only a couple of feet off the water before climbing away. That way if it goes quiet whilst I'm slow there isn't enough height to build up a high rate of descent before alighting on the water again. Once I start climbing out I should have enough energy to be able to flare.

er340790
in Australia CASA have issued exemption CASA EX01/09 that allow seaplanes to turn any direction at dot feet. There are numerous places where you will see me turn at low level to keep suitable water for landing should the engine stop. Landing in 3' to 4' waves on an EFATO with no damage is a sensational effort.:ok:

tio540

Oh no, not the dreaded engine failure on the 2000 nm flat runway, into wind. http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

and without trees/terrain and stuff.


Flat it may be on a nice day. Seaplanes regularly operate off water with 60cm (2ft) waves. The roughest water I have operated in was about 90cm (3ft) waves. Rough water often requires a significant crosswind to be accepted so that the waves can be paralleled.

[remoak]

The technique that I use is once free of the water is to build airspeed whilst only a couple of feet off the water before climbing away

Exactly right. That's why I was a little stingy with my "flying" score. The real test of airmanship/professionalism is whether you allow yourself to get into an unrecoverable situation which results in damage, injury or loss. If she had done what you have described above, there wouldn't have been any damage - exceptional circumstances notwithstanding, as noted in my earlier post...

[Q300]

Might I add the waves were rough - the aircraft landed hard on a 'hard' wave.

It may interest you to know that I am in the know. I live in Rotorua and do some casual stuff with Volcanic Air. I have seen the damage done to the aircraft first hand.

Lake Rotorua can be a tough land sometimes when everything is going well, but with a dead engine things can only get worse. Not to mention boats and stuff out and about.

Of course, my main thing is I don't understand why you have to be so negative - saying the pilot should have done this, that or the other. Always focusing on the negative side and never the positive. Look at the facts: everyone got out and the damage is considerable but hardly a write off.

I understand there are things that could have been improved, but still.

[remoak]

I assume that you are referring to me. If you see my comments as purely negative, you are living about 30 years in the past, before Human Factors became popular.

Regarding your comments, I find it hard to believe that the waves she landed in were any different to the ones she took off from, if she only ever got to 15 feet altitude. How far is that, 50m? And you have no idea whether she landed on a "hard" wave unless you actually saw the event. Funny, I though they were all equally hard...

The sad fact is that congratulating someone for an act that resulted in unnecessary damage, or that was flawed in some way, doesn't result in a better performance the next time.

An honest appraisal of what happened, followed by a frank discussion on what to do next time, is what actually works. Ask any airline trainer.

The idea that you pat people on the back for not killing anyone is oh so PPRuNe...

[BAY]

Remoak your a Tool

[remoak]

Silly boy. It's "you're a tool". Weren't paying attention in school, were you?

[RadioSaigon]

<sigh> You're quite determined to prove BAY's point beyond any suspicion of doubt, aren't you remoak... :ugh::mad:

[walu]

Remoak and others talking about this incident have little if nothing to offer this discussion unless you have experience on this type of aircraft in this type of operation. Much like someone talking about Airline operations without the prerequisite knowledge and experience.
I can comment on the Cessna T206 Stationaire on floats, having some experience in open sea tropical seaplane services myself but I don't want to start a pi##ing match either. Suffice to say, it's a limited performance seaplane which I consider one of the most valuable types to gain experience on and one which teaches many pilots lessons like this on a regular basis. They get pranged and banged up a lot on floats and for good reason the sea is very unforgiving and the harshest environment to operate an aircraft on.
It's so rough that if you don't have the horsepower to get out of it at a the slowest possible speed then the airframe and floats will break at some stage. Engine failure is rarer and I hope the pilot and the operator learn the most from this costly experience. When to draw the line with this aircraft is hard to know and I admire people's willingness to operate them as seaplanes despite the higher costs and risks.
I've had the worst take off in my life in a Cessna Caravan and badly bent the firewall as a result, it was a close call and nobody was hurt but I've learnt a great deal from it. I've got not doubt in my mind about the limitations this aircraft has but you won't find this written anywhere.... it's only through operational experience some knowledge is gained.

[Lineboy4life]

walu - care to elaboarte, :confused:I've flown the van for 1300 or so hours and found her to be one the most forgiving, easy to load & well designed aircraft of my 15 or so types flown over the last 5000 hrs:ok: - all be it like any cessna she's a little underpowered and doesnt like ice.:}

As for the girlie that unfortunatly suffered an engine failure at none feet in a two-o-sux with 2 canoes bolted to its bum - well done, no-one hurt and the insurance will get er buffed out. :cool:

[jasmine]

Dear Mr. Remoak,

I wish to notify you of NASA's interest in offering you a postion on our staff.
We are looking for someone to oversee the training of a new astronaught division.

After reading your comments on this forum, we naturally assume that you must be one of the most experienced pilots in the world, and topped with you great people skills we think you would be an asset to our team.

I know the Float plane flying school for junior Mavericks you clearly operate would miss you, as people like you are hard to find, but we think the world needs you here.

If you would like to know more, please visit
www. youareatool .com

It is with great anticipation that we await your resonse.

Regards.
Capt Chip Lightyear.
Head of Recriutment
Monkey Division
NASA

[captain big balls]

Very nice work jasmine:D

[remoak]

Ah, the fun to be had winding up space cadet wannabes. Keep going chaps, you are making my day!:D:D:D

Seeing as you can't even spell "astronaut", not to mention "position", "your", "response" and "recruitment", I don't think I'll bother applying. Are you guys naturally stupid, or did you take lessons...? :rolleyes:

[werbil]

Lineboy4life:

Rough water operations can scary even for experienced float drivers. It can be quite a 'ride' with stop to stop use of the elevator to try to maintain the best planing angle of the hulls through the water. If the water is too rough or you get it wrong you can end up slamming the bottom of the floats into a wave - and it can be back and teeth jarring.

The caravan is an OK float plane - it has sufficient power to get onto the step and out of the water reasonably quickly (we limit weights in rough water). One feature of the C208 that is not ideal for seaplanes is that it has a cruise rather than a STOL wing with quite a high stall speed - the faster you go through water the harder the waves are.

Bent firewalls are a relatively common problem in C208 floatplanes - it is my understanding that this is normally the part of the structure that fails first - we call it the concorde STC. There are a number of firewall reinforcing modifications available - I believe if you order a new float plane from Cessna or Wipaire they now include some level of firewall reinforcement modification as standard.

The only way to assess whether water is suitable for seaplane operations is visually when flying over or from the surface. Whilst the actual weather conditions (wind and tide) can give you an indication of what the water may be like sometimes the water is the opposite of what you'd expect. Being able to determine the actual water conditions visually and their likely effect on aircraft operations is something that only comes through experience. This is why seaplane pilots with significant open water experience are often in demand.

Whether the pilot did a good or bad job on the day I don't know - I wasn't there and don't know what the water was like. If the water was crap it was a great job. If the water was good directly in front of the aircraft when the donk stopped it was a pretty average job. Seaplanes already carry very high insurance premiums - unnecessary claims only raise the premiums for everyone else.

[werbil]

remoak:

If you get launched and hang the aircraft on the prop it can take hundreds of metres to build up enough speed in ground effect before climbing to fifteen feet - particularly if it there are lots of bullets (gusts) about.

Water conditions can change very quickly - sometimes in as little as a few metres. Different currents can make water stand up or flatten out in a very short distance. There are a number of places where we take off that the water becomes very rough in front of the aircraft in a very short distance - where we use shallow water to flatten the waves, where we use the curve a bay for protection and where there is a significant change in the current. Whilst we try and use water that gives no damage options in the event of an engine failure it is not always possible.

I'm with you on the 'no one was killed so the pilot did a great job' attitude. I'm a firm beleiver of 'a superior pilot uses their superior judgement to avoid using their superior skill'. There was a ditching in Australia recently that the ATSB found was most likely caused by fuel starvation. Some posters on pprune said the pilot was a hero for conducting a sucessful ditching without drowning anyone.:ugh:

[remoak]

Cheers werbil.

For what it's worth, in my experience salt water ops are normally different to freshwater... the characteristics of a lake are not the same as the sea. No significant currents to speak of, no tides, generally no swells, and having flown around RotoVegas a bit, from what I've seen the water conditions don't generally change all that much unless you are near the island.