Float plane down in Rotorua
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Canadian Shield
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
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.
tio540
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.
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.
tio540
Oh no, not the dreaded engine failure on the 2000 nm flat runway, into wind. 
and without trees/terrain and stuff.
and without trees/terrain and stuff.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Vito dei Normanni
Age: 52
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: All over
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
walu - care to elaboarte, 
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 - 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.
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 - 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.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NASA Job opportunity
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, the fun to be had winding up space cadet wannabes. Keep going chaps, you are making my day!
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...?
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...?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
