Ballsy waterskiing display
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BPF.
Thank you for the detailed analysis of every word of my post.
I had no idea that a simple butty run could be so complicated!
Why it is necessary for instructors to make such a song and dance about a simple, perhaps indiscreet, piece of fun flying, carried out by a pilot who appears to have flown the manoeuvre successfully, really baffles me.
As a point of interest, I do in fact attempt to fly the butty run in exactly the manner that you describe.
I keep the centreline as straight as possible aiming for a particular tree at the far end, I don't, as I used to, push the stick forward in a vain attempt to get the tail up instantly, I've learned that central stick gets it up quicker as the elevator is not acting as a drag flap!
I set up the aircraft to cruise hands off as best I can, maintaining height, speed and track as accurately as possible. So that I can follow the coastline with just light touches left and right.
I attempt to perform a perfect semi circular base/final decending turn ending at the threshold with a perfect three point touchdown at 50knots with as short a run out as possible without using brakes.
I perform several circuits in as accurate a pattern as possible so that they are overlaid on top of each other on the GPS when I study it afterwards.
I regularly examine the oleo legs after landing to check how little compression I can get on touchdown by the position of the last grease mark on the pistons.
This doesn't always happen exactly as planned.
I recently did a revalidation hour with an instructor.
I was strongly told that I should fly the circuit with reference to the compass, "never mind where the runway is, fly the correct heading!" Bright sunny day by the way.
PFL. Changed my mind on field selection at base leg, as it contained a rape crop, "suit yourself, but we're not going to actually land in it"
FFS!
My flying may not be perfect but I do, believe me, I do bloody well try!! And I don't need to have every word nit picked to death. It is very easy to do that!!
Can't do smileys I'm afraid.....
Thank you for the detailed analysis of every word of my post.
I had no idea that a simple butty run could be so complicated!
Why it is necessary for instructors to make such a song and dance about a simple, perhaps indiscreet, piece of fun flying, carried out by a pilot who appears to have flown the manoeuvre successfully, really baffles me.
As a point of interest, I do in fact attempt to fly the butty run in exactly the manner that you describe.
I keep the centreline as straight as possible aiming for a particular tree at the far end, I don't, as I used to, push the stick forward in a vain attempt to get the tail up instantly, I've learned that central stick gets it up quicker as the elevator is not acting as a drag flap!
I set up the aircraft to cruise hands off as best I can, maintaining height, speed and track as accurately as possible. So that I can follow the coastline with just light touches left and right.
I attempt to perform a perfect semi circular base/final decending turn ending at the threshold with a perfect three point touchdown at 50knots with as short a run out as possible without using brakes.
I perform several circuits in as accurate a pattern as possible so that they are overlaid on top of each other on the GPS when I study it afterwards.
I regularly examine the oleo legs after landing to check how little compression I can get on touchdown by the position of the last grease mark on the pistons.
This doesn't always happen exactly as planned.
I recently did a revalidation hour with an instructor.
I was strongly told that I should fly the circuit with reference to the compass, "never mind where the runway is, fly the correct heading!" Bright sunny day by the way.
PFL. Changed my mind on field selection at base leg, as it contained a rape crop, "suit yourself, but we're not going to actually land in it"
FFS!
My flying may not be perfect but I do, believe me, I do bloody well try!! And I don't need to have every word nit picked to death. It is very easy to do that!!
Can't do smileys I'm afraid.....
Why it is necessary for instructors to make such a song and dance about a simple, perhaps indiscreet, piece of fun flying, carried out by a pilot who appears to have flown the manoeuvre successfully, really baffles me.
With respect to watersking I have, of course never done any, but I have owned 2 float planes and taught pilots for the float rating. Working off the water is never a sure thing and most of the float course is about learning to evaluating the water conditions and working to recognize and minimize the inherent risk.
As for the video, the guy taking the video is standing next to a runway, and it sure looks like the watersking was planned to maximize the "look at me I am such a Sky God" factor.....
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of people die through acts of foolishness, but when they are grown up adults and having had advice and training that should give them the sense to consider their actions, there is not much else one can do to keep them from their own fate.
I don't do water skiing either. Nor would I encourage anyone to try it. But, if that is their wish to get whatever kicks they need, then it's not up to me to keep going on about how stupid it is, any more than high wire walking across certain death drops, bungee jumping, or mountain biking between trees and rocks at high speed.
As for the video, I know the airfield, and the guy taking the video.
It was at Glenforsa isle of Mull with a large hotel balcony perfect viewing platform overlooking the bay, so "look at me, Sky God" may well be true.
I don't do water skiing either. Nor would I encourage anyone to try it. But, if that is their wish to get whatever kicks they need, then it's not up to me to keep going on about how stupid it is, any more than high wire walking across certain death drops, bungee jumping, or mountain biking between trees and rocks at high speed.
As for the video, I know the airfield, and the guy taking the video.
It was at Glenforsa isle of Mull with a large hotel balcony perfect viewing platform overlooking the bay, so "look at me, Sky God" may well be true.
Moderator
Working off the water is never a sure thing and most of the float course is about learning to evaluating the water conditions and working to recognize and minimize the inherent risk.
I'm intrigued about the 'washing sand off tyres' bit.
Really?
1. Why are they bothered about having some sand on their tyres?
2. Surely easier with a hose at the end of the day's flying?
As for the rest, I suspect that this argument/discussion will rage in exactly the same way there seems to be no grey area for driving on the roads:
1. Every guy who overtakes me is a crazy lunatic.
2. Every guy who I have to overtake is a Sunday driver who'd be parked if he went any more slowly.
Nowhere in between!
Safe flights (depending on your own definition of 'safe' of course), Sam.
Really?
1. Why are they bothered about having some sand on their tyres?
2. Surely easier with a hose at the end of the day's flying?
As for the rest, I suspect that this argument/discussion will rage in exactly the same way there seems to be no grey area for driving on the roads:
1. Every guy who overtakes me is a crazy lunatic.
2. Every guy who I have to overtake is a Sunday driver who'd be parked if he went any more slowly.
Nowhere in between!
Safe flights (depending on your own definition of 'safe' of course), Sam.
Not impressed in slightest.
Quiet often an indicator of inexperience, immaturity, SPS (short penis syndrome) or some other type of personality defect. As said previously it just ain't worth it.
The Harvard team. Not a very original or clever thing to do. All been done before.
Aviation is hazardous enough. If you look for trouble, you will find it eventually.
Quiet often an indicator of inexperience, immaturity, SPS (short penis syndrome) or some other type of personality defect. As said previously it just ain't worth it.
The Harvard team. Not a very original or clever thing to do. All been done before.
Aviation is hazardous enough. If you look for trouble, you will find it eventually.
1) What was shown on the video had nothing to do with practicing watersking to assist landings as the pilot obviously added a whole bunch of power to maintain the waterski, or in other words "practiced" a skill that would never be used in an actual landing.
2) The youtube videos of guys touching down in the water short of a gravel bar all seem to be about the Yee Haw. None of the ones I have seen show a landing that had a purpose, other than to show off.
I suppose that there may be the odd situation where the only practical way to get on to the gravel bar is to touch a bit short, but I would argue that in almost all those cases simply going down the river a bit will find you a better gravel bar to use.
The bottom line on this is simple. Buddy in the video wants to practice short landings, why not use the runway that is right beside him
Finally when you screw up show boating, you don't just hurt yourself, you hurt everyone who flies a light aeroplane, by providing more ammunition to those who want to grounds us all
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: North west
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would answer your question in 2 parts
1) What was shown on the video had nothing to do with practicing watersking to assist landings as the pilot obviously added a whole bunch of power to maintain the waterski, or in other words "practiced" a skill that would never be used in an actual landing.
2) The youtube videos of guys touching down in the water short of a gravel bar all seem to be about the Yee Haw. None of the ones I have seen show a landing that had a purpose, other than to show off.
I suppose that there may be the odd situation where the only practical way to get on to the gravel bar is to touch a bit short, but I would argue that in almost all those cases simply going down the river a bit will find you a better gravel bar to use.
The bottom line on this is simple. Buddy in the video wants to practice short landings, why not use the runway that is right beside him
Finally when you screw up show boating, you don't just hurt yourself, you hurt everyone who flies a light aeroplane, by providing more ammunition to those who want to grounds us all
1) What was shown on the video had nothing to do with practicing watersking to assist landings as the pilot obviously added a whole bunch of power to maintain the waterski, or in other words "practiced" a skill that would never be used in an actual landing.
2) The youtube videos of guys touching down in the water short of a gravel bar all seem to be about the Yee Haw. None of the ones I have seen show a landing that had a purpose, other than to show off.
I suppose that there may be the odd situation where the only practical way to get on to the gravel bar is to touch a bit short, but I would argue that in almost all those cases simply going down the river a bit will find you a better gravel bar to use.
The bottom line on this is simple. Buddy in the video wants to practice short landings, why not use the runway that is right beside him
Finally when you screw up show boating, you don't just hurt yourself, you hurt everyone who flies a light aeroplane, by providing more ammunition to those who want to grounds us all
2) Youtube videos tend to be a self selecting sample. The people who are often doing this practice because they need to tend not to be spending the time videoing themselves and putting it on the internet to show others.
I have a property that I would like to be able to fly into. The only way to safely land would be to use a water assisted landing technique. I've not done it yet as I don't have the necessary skill or site prepared suitably.
Moderator
Intended function
Another perspective which deserves consideration is that of intended function. For certified aircraft, the basis of certification includes many specific requirements and maneuvering capabilities. If alternative landing gear is available for the type, it will have been similarly approved - with intended function demonstrated (as not requiring unusual pilot skill and attention), and defined.
Generally, the procedures and techniques to achieve these results will be described in the manual for the aircraft. These will be associated with listed "approved maneuvers". Interestingly, one light, single engined turbine aircraft I flew, whose flight manual described 30 degree flap STOL takeoffs, 60 flap STOL landings, and other not so common advanced maneuvering, also included (boldly on the front page): "Maneuvers not described in this flight manual are prohibited" - just to leave zero doubt as to intended function for that type.
And, it goes into more detail than the whole plane, parts will also have demonstrated their compliance with specific requirements - like tires. Would any tire manufacture include water skiing in their statement of intended function for their tires?
Then, there's the intended function of insurance - to cover loss resulting from an accident. Insurance is very rarely intended to cover a loss resulting from a deliberate action. If you were operating the aircraft within its intended function, and with your due diligence, something went wrong, it was likely an accident. If deliberately operated outside the intended function for the aircraft, it could be difficult to characterize and unintended event as an accident.
Generally, the procedures and techniques to achieve these results will be described in the manual for the aircraft. These will be associated with listed "approved maneuvers". Interestingly, one light, single engined turbine aircraft I flew, whose flight manual described 30 degree flap STOL takeoffs, 60 flap STOL landings, and other not so common advanced maneuvering, also included (boldly on the front page): "Maneuvers not described in this flight manual are prohibited" - just to leave zero doubt as to intended function for that type.
And, it goes into more detail than the whole plane, parts will also have demonstrated their compliance with specific requirements - like tires. Would any tire manufacture include water skiing in their statement of intended function for their tires?
Then, there's the intended function of insurance - to cover loss resulting from an accident. Insurance is very rarely intended to cover a loss resulting from a deliberate action. If you were operating the aircraft within its intended function, and with your due diligence, something went wrong, it was likely an accident. If deliberately operated outside the intended function for the aircraft, it could be difficult to characterize and unintended event as an accident.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember seeing a program many years ago about crop spraying pilots in africa, as a bit of relaxation at the end of the day they used to go water-skiing on the local river, i recall them saying that you had to do it with the brakes on or you would get dragged in! and then the crocs would pay you a visit!
Another perspective which deserves consideration is that of intended function. For certified aircraft, the basis of certification includes many specific requirements and maneuvering capabilities. If alternative landing gear is available for the type, it will have been similarly approved - with intended function demonstrated (as not requiring unusual pilot skill and attention), and defined.
Generally, the procedures and techniques to achieve these results will be described in the manual for the aircraft. These will be associated with listed "approved maneuvers". Interestingly, one light, single engined turbine aircraft I flew, whose flight manual described 30 degree flap STOL takeoffs, 60 flap STOL landings, and other not so common advanced maneuvering, also included (boldly on the front page): "Maneuvers not described in this flight manual are prohibited" - just to leave zero doubt as to intended function for that type.
And, it goes into more detail than the whole plane, parts will also have demonstrated their compliance with specific requirements - like tires. Would any tire manufacture include water skiing in their statement of intended function for their tires?
Then, there's the intended function of insurance - to cover loss resulting from an accident. Insurance is very rarely intended to cover a loss resulting from a deliberate action. If you were operating the aircraft within its intended function, and with your due diligence, something went wrong, it was likely an accident. If deliberately operated outside the intended function for the aircraft, it could be difficult to characterize and unintended event as an accident.
Generally, the procedures and techniques to achieve these results will be described in the manual for the aircraft. These will be associated with listed "approved maneuvers". Interestingly, one light, single engined turbine aircraft I flew, whose flight manual described 30 degree flap STOL takeoffs, 60 flap STOL landings, and other not so common advanced maneuvering, also included (boldly on the front page): "Maneuvers not described in this flight manual are prohibited" - just to leave zero doubt as to intended function for that type.
And, it goes into more detail than the whole plane, parts will also have demonstrated their compliance with specific requirements - like tires. Would any tire manufacture include water skiing in their statement of intended function for their tires?
Then, there's the intended function of insurance - to cover loss resulting from an accident. Insurance is very rarely intended to cover a loss resulting from a deliberate action. If you were operating the aircraft within its intended function, and with your due diligence, something went wrong, it was likely an accident. If deliberately operated outside the intended function for the aircraft, it could be difficult to characterize and unintended event as an accident.
From what I've seen re water to land ops the dominant certified aircraft are the Super Cubs and Maules. Most others look to be cub clone and experimental types. Best I remember the Cub and Maule flight manuals are sensibly slim documents that don't specifically prohibit landing type manoeuvres that might be considered outside of what is described in the flight manual.
As to tyres. The Alaskan Bush wheel seems to be the predominant brand. https://www.airframesalaska.com/default.asp About all ABW mentions re runway surface is "Runways everywhere" The ABW tyre STC leaves it to the pilot to decide on runway surface suitability.
As to insurance, there is basically three components: Pax; Hull; Public Liability.
If there are no Pax carried and your not worried about the hull, i.e. No loan, then there is only the Public Liability to worry about. As many of the water ski bush ops are to places well away from people, I guess that's a minor risk if there is no insurance available. I've not done water ski ops though I occasionally do helicopter mustering and there is insurance available for that. So I'd guess there's likely water op liability insurance available.
.
I would answer your question in 2 parts
1) What was shown on the video had nothing to do with practicing watersking to assist landings as the pilot obviously added a whole bunch of power to maintain the waterski, or in other words "practiced" a skill that would never be used in an actual landing.
2) The youtube videos of guys touching down in the water short of a gravel bar all seem to be about the Yee Haw. None of the ones I have seen show a landing that had a purpose, other than to show off.
I suppose that there may be the odd situation where the only practical way to get on to the gravel bar is to touch a bit short, but I would argue that in almost all those cases simply going down the river a bit will find you a better gravel bar to use.
The bottom line on this is simple. Buddy in the video wants to practice short landings, why not use the runway that is right beside him
Finally when you screw up show boating, you don't just hurt yourself, you hurt everyone who flies a light aeroplane, by providing more ammunition to those who want to grounds us all
1) What was shown on the video had nothing to do with practicing watersking to assist landings as the pilot obviously added a whole bunch of power to maintain the waterski, or in other words "practiced" a skill that would never be used in an actual landing.
2) The youtube videos of guys touching down in the water short of a gravel bar all seem to be about the Yee Haw. None of the ones I have seen show a landing that had a purpose, other than to show off.
I suppose that there may be the odd situation where the only practical way to get on to the gravel bar is to touch a bit short, but I would argue that in almost all those cases simply going down the river a bit will find you a better gravel bar to use.
The bottom line on this is simple. Buddy in the video wants to practice short landings, why not use the runway that is right beside him
Finally when you screw up show boating, you don't just hurt yourself, you hurt everyone who flies a light aeroplane, by providing more ammunition to those who want to grounds us all
2) Looked to me like a training flight.
"...going down the river a bit will find you a better gravel bar..."
Why not use the aircraft to its full potential and land at the place you want to and not have to pack your kit from some distant landing site.
.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Touching down on water for the purpose of shortening a landing, gravel bars, beaches etc in some parts of the world is no doubt a requirement/necessity.
Whether a rescue operation or convenience or just "handy".
It is obviously relatively safe, though not as safe as a nice flat strip of grass.
If pilots are operating in such situations then practice would be required, certainly a sensible thing to do prior to a first attempt out of reach of help when/if it goes belly up.
There are plenty of places in Scotland among lochs and shallow rivers where suitable flat ground is not available in the event of a problem, weather or engine etc.
I don't see this practice as any more dangerous than practicing stalls or spin recovery, in the right kind of aircraft.
I also don't think an aerobatic course to teach accuracy of flying would help.
Whether a rescue operation or convenience or just "handy".
It is obviously relatively safe, though not as safe as a nice flat strip of grass.
If pilots are operating in such situations then practice would be required, certainly a sensible thing to do prior to a first attempt out of reach of help when/if it goes belly up.
There are plenty of places in Scotland among lochs and shallow rivers where suitable flat ground is not available in the event of a problem, weather or engine etc.
I don't see this practice as any more dangerous than practicing stalls or spin recovery, in the right kind of aircraft.
I also don't think an aerobatic course to teach accuracy of flying would help.
