Float plane down in Rotorua
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Float plane down in Rotorua
"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
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
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by remoak
One wonders why a simple landing back on the water wasn't possible... I mean from only 15 feet... but WTFDIK...
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.
Last edited by RadioSaigon; 25th Mar 2009 at 10:49.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Where the beer is cold and the weather is colder.
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remoak - True, but Airlines generally wait until the outcome of a formal investigation before they start blaming people or questioning perfomance and ability.
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.
You only have to look at the accident stats in recent years to see the trend.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Island
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Remoak, I give the pilot 9/10 for skill and ability and 20/10 for coolness.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by qtn
Radio saigon, you're not the grumpy dutchman are you???
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NSN
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.
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.
Airlines generally wait until the outcome of a formal investigation before they start blaming people or questioning perfomance and ability.
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
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: swaziland
Age: 63
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: BackofBourke
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by tio540; 27th Mar 2009 at 11:09. Reason: Forgot trees
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
even I can see that there isn't a lot you can do with a dead engine at 15 feet above a lake