A License to Learn
Thread Starter
A License to Learn
I've just stumbled on this very interesting floatplane safety film. In spite of being 20 years old, it is still informative and pertinent. There is still discussion and controversy in Canada, about wearing life-jackets in floatplanes.
I find it somewhat ironic, given that it is a Canadian film, that the title uses American spelling.
I find it somewhat ironic, given that it is a Canadian film, that the title uses American spelling.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This accident was one of the case studies during an underwater egress course I took. It was explained to us that the skilled and competent pilot hired to fly for the scene (as seen, but land safely rather than crash) decined the work, saying that it could not be flown safely in those conditions. The movie makers hired a very much less experienced and qualified pilot to fly it, who wen on to demonstrate how experience and qualifications are good things in guiding one away from attempting some things in 'planes. Landing in these conditions and environment is doable, but very demanding, and leaves no room for mistakes. If looking at the prospect of flying that approach and landing does not send shivers up your spine, you're not paying attention!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
What were "those conditions" that made a safe landing impossible?
It looked to me like the rate of descent was somewhat high, and then he landed hard on just one float whilst going sideways, but what I couldn't see was why any of that was felt to be necessary. Winds? Short lake?
It looked to me like the rate of descent was somewhat high, and then he landed hard on just one float whilst going sideways, but what I couldn't see was why any of that was felt to be necessary. Winds? Short lake?
If you mean the Beaver at 10.40 - this accident happened during filming of 'Motherlode' (Charlton Heston/Kim Basinger/Nick Mancuso) - the accident was not scripted - but the film script was rewritten to include it in the story.
It is not that good a film but does have a nice little Flying sequence.
Edit to say - it is on youtube with the Beaver 'Arrival' at approx 22.00
It is not that good a film but does have a nice little Flying sequence.
Edit to say - it is on youtube with the Beaver 'Arrival' at approx 22.00
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What were "those conditions" that made a safe landing impossible?
Landing in a place like that is best done with a lot of understanding of the topography and visual cues, and planning accordingly. A high reconnaissance view can be difficult to accomplish, particularly when there is time pressure.
I've had to fly that landing, in a 182 amphibian, onto a lake I'd never landed on before, surrounded by 5000 foot mountains, with no wind, glassy, very clear water, with 100 people watching the event. I arranged to drive to the lake first, and stood from shore to assess things. Flying a circuit inside those mountains was really tight, but a straight in was not possible, it had to be a spiral down turning final. It worked, but it was a pucker factor landing, and in perfectly clear blue sky conditions.
That is the point of the title - pilots who are genuinely competent flying an aircraft in some conditions, or a certain environment (topography) may be completely out of their element in that 'plane in other conditions. They must recognize all by themselves, that the license they have earned to fly that aircraft, is a license to learn in some of the conditions that they could encounter - and they need to know how to recognize that, and adjust or decline that flight accordingly.
Many times while providing type training, I have said to my charge, that they should be afraid. "Huh!?" is the common reaction, and I repeat myself for affect. Sometimes pilots (maybe new to a type, or situation, need to have their sense of danger and risk recalibrated. They need to learn with their license.
Thread Starter
I'm a relatively inexperienced float pilot, with only about 20 hours or so, but I would like to add to Step Turn's comments on glassy-water landings. Unless you've actually done one yourself, it's hard to believe the complete lack of height perception.
The procedure is to set up a powered approach with a very low rate of descent and wait until you hear the hiss as the keels touch the water and then throttle back.
When I was learning to do this, I often had the illusion that we were about to touch down, when in fact we were probably about 100' up and and it took another 30 seconds or so before we touched down. I had to very strongly resist the temptation to close the throttle early.
A normal approach and landing, involving a steeper approach and a flare, is fine when there are ripples on the water, but can be fatal on glassy water.
The procedure is to set up a powered approach with a very low rate of descent and wait until you hear the hiss as the keels touch the water and then throttle back.
When I was learning to do this, I often had the illusion that we were about to touch down, when in fact we were probably about 100' up and and it took another 30 seconds or so before we touched down. I had to very strongly resist the temptation to close the throttle early.
A normal approach and landing, involving a steeper approach and a flare, is fine when there are ripples on the water, but can be fatal on glassy water.
Last edited by India Four Two; 13th Jan 2017 at 05:14. Reason: Reason for avoiding a standard approach
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Guys,
I'm totally ignorant of operations off water but must confess to being fascinated by this thread.
Can anybody please tell me if the safety implications are any different if flying a flying boat rather than a float plane and operating off sea water rather than an inland lake?
My thanks in advance for any responses to my (ignorant) question.
BP.
I'm totally ignorant of operations off water but must confess to being fascinated by this thread.
Can anybody please tell me if the safety implications are any different if flying a flying boat rather than a float plane and operating off sea water rather than an inland lake?
My thanks in advance for any responses to my (ignorant) question.
BP.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Floatplanes and flying boats are very different to each other, and in my opinion, should be separate endorsements on a pilot license. Each have their pros and cons, though for safety, I would rather be flying a flying boat than a floatplane. Floatplanes are very much easier to dock!
Flying boats are rugged, and lighter for that ruggedness than a floatplane. As their C of G is lower in the water, they generally have wingtip floats, and a full length hull, they are much more stable on the water, and during mishandling. But, they are also vulnerable to porpoising, and loosing control. Floatplanes can be safely flown with less pitch finesse, but ultimately will bite a careless pilot every bit as hard. Flying boats are much easier to step turn than a floatplane, and keep a bigger margin of safety.
Lakes are variable in the type of water to be encountered, because of size, exposure to winds, fetch and marine traffic. Some lakes I fly into are like a mill pond every time, but they're small. Other lakes are large and can whip up badly and quickly. These variables mean that the pilot must be familiar and aware of all of these factors. There is nearly never the assurance of aerodrome like comforts and infrastructure to make the pilot's life easier. You gotta work it out for yourself, and getting it wrong could be fatal.
Ocean operations have the potential to be different, in that conditions don't change as quickly, but there are hazards uncommon in lakes. Mostly, those hazards are very long period swells, which will make any takeoff or landing run a wild ride, inviting disaster. I've been very tempted by a smooth ocean surface, but only ever landing in protected areas. The main aspect of this is that you will have shoreline as a reference, and importantly, you can watch the the water against shore. Even though you may not see swells in the water, you'll see them against shore, and know there is a hazard there.
That said, harbours and well used waterways are difficult for water flying operations. Boats just don't know what to do around 'planes. The boat/ship wakes not only give you a rough ride, but will superimpose to become horrendous hazards. In some cases, there are designated water aerodrome areas, and this can help, but the rough water can still get you, a charted area does not convince the water! Last summer, approaching Split, Croatia, I was informed that [on a super nice day] the airport had been closed - too much holiday jet traffic for them to handle. So, after some complex arrangements, I was permitted to use the harbour aerodrome. It's a square for ECA's Twin Otters, it was a piece of work to find an area of water calm enough for the 182. I did not want to leave it corroding in the salt water over night, so thankfully, Split airport allowed me in at sunset. I was able to get a fresh water wash for it. Otherwise, every ocean operation I have flown has been followed by a fresh water splash around and landing to rinse the 'plane.
My water flying license to learn began more than 25 years ago, with intense (sometimes annoying) parental type mentoring for the first few hundred hours (they were not my floatplanes, so I had to accept the mentoring to use the 'plane). But, that kept me alive. A thousand plus water hours later, I'm beginning to feel confident on the water - not that I can do anything, but that I can select accurately the conditions I can safely handle in whatever I'm flying.
Flying boats are rugged, and lighter for that ruggedness than a floatplane. As their C of G is lower in the water, they generally have wingtip floats, and a full length hull, they are much more stable on the water, and during mishandling. But, they are also vulnerable to porpoising, and loosing control. Floatplanes can be safely flown with less pitch finesse, but ultimately will bite a careless pilot every bit as hard. Flying boats are much easier to step turn than a floatplane, and keep a bigger margin of safety.
Lakes are variable in the type of water to be encountered, because of size, exposure to winds, fetch and marine traffic. Some lakes I fly into are like a mill pond every time, but they're small. Other lakes are large and can whip up badly and quickly. These variables mean that the pilot must be familiar and aware of all of these factors. There is nearly never the assurance of aerodrome like comforts and infrastructure to make the pilot's life easier. You gotta work it out for yourself, and getting it wrong could be fatal.
Ocean operations have the potential to be different, in that conditions don't change as quickly, but there are hazards uncommon in lakes. Mostly, those hazards are very long period swells, which will make any takeoff or landing run a wild ride, inviting disaster. I've been very tempted by a smooth ocean surface, but only ever landing in protected areas. The main aspect of this is that you will have shoreline as a reference, and importantly, you can watch the the water against shore. Even though you may not see swells in the water, you'll see them against shore, and know there is a hazard there.
That said, harbours and well used waterways are difficult for water flying operations. Boats just don't know what to do around 'planes. The boat/ship wakes not only give you a rough ride, but will superimpose to become horrendous hazards. In some cases, there are designated water aerodrome areas, and this can help, but the rough water can still get you, a charted area does not convince the water! Last summer, approaching Split, Croatia, I was informed that [on a super nice day] the airport had been closed - too much holiday jet traffic for them to handle. So, after some complex arrangements, I was permitted to use the harbour aerodrome. It's a square for ECA's Twin Otters, it was a piece of work to find an area of water calm enough for the 182. I did not want to leave it corroding in the salt water over night, so thankfully, Split airport allowed me in at sunset. I was able to get a fresh water wash for it. Otherwise, every ocean operation I have flown has been followed by a fresh water splash around and landing to rinse the 'plane.
My water flying license to learn began more than 25 years ago, with intense (sometimes annoying) parental type mentoring for the first few hundred hours (they were not my floatplanes, so I had to accept the mentoring to use the 'plane). But, that kept me alive. A thousand plus water hours later, I'm beginning to feel confident on the water - not that I can do anything, but that I can select accurately the conditions I can safely handle in whatever I'm flying.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
When I was learning to do this, I often had the illusion that we were about to touch down, when in fact we were probably about 100' up and and it took another 30 seconds or so before we touched down. I had to very strongly resist the temptation to close the throttle early.
Even rotary can have it's problems too. A friend of mine was landing a non float equipped helicopter on the land close to the waters edge in glassy conditions and flew it into the water on approach. I remember him telling me he thought all was okay until the next thing he was inverted in the water and sinking fast.Luckily no fatalities, apart from the aircraft.
I just posted this a reminder to the rotary guys.
R
I just posted this a reminder to the rotary guys.
R
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, helicopter pilots can fall victim too. It's best to approach where the shoreline, or other objects in calm water can be used for reference as to altitude. Once you're close to the water, the downwash will give you a reference, as you enter a hover. It's spooky though, as while in the hover, the downwash will be moving away from you in all directions, so if you look at the surface in one spot, you'll have the sense that you are moving, when you might not be.
When you finally land a helicopter in the water (float equipped), it's unlike other landings, as if you don't actually watch your contact with the water, it may be hard to know that you're "down". My first time, I had the collective bottomed as I realized that I had landed, because there is no feeling of contact, as there would be with skids on the ground, or a floatplane/flying boat on the water.
When you finally land a helicopter in the water (float equipped), it's unlike other landings, as if you don't actually watch your contact with the water, it may be hard to know that you're "down". My first time, I had the collective bottomed as I realized that I had landed, because there is no feeling of contact, as there would be with skids on the ground, or a floatplane/flying boat on the water.
Hi Step Turn.
Totally agree. The first time I landed a float equipped Helicopter on the water I thought it would never stop going down as I lowered the collective.
As a pplh I was well mentored on the dangers of water , especially glassy calm.
I always remember the advice.
Totally agree. The first time I landed a float equipped Helicopter on the water I thought it would never stop going down as I lowered the collective.
As a pplh I was well mentored on the dangers of water , especially glassy calm.
I always remember the advice.
