Another Norseman...gone

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

corethatthermal
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 220
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by corethatthermal » Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:16 pm

For those who are ignorant , in glassy water conditions, a normal or steep approach is flown UNTIL the lake or pond or piss hole is "made" ( for me made means you have made it to the point that you are on speed and at an altitude and position to immediately transition to a glassy water approach and complete a successful landing , given the lake size etc. ) For a smallish round lake even this approach procedure can lead to excessive distance used to land due to the need to set up for a glassy water before an altitude above water that you CANNOT judge.
I have done MANY glassy water landings and taught many as well ( difficult to teach when it is not glassy )
IF one does a backside approach ( no worries mate, it is calm as hell so no concerns with wind shear induced stall ) you have a lower approach speed at a steeper profile to position yourself for the smaller lake .
You would need to add power to bring yourself to the front side of the power curve to execute the approach but i believe it can be done quite successfully with practice . This approach would alleviate concerns with limited space and make a better pilot out of you as well! This approach, of course, would only be done for a small landing area with poor peripheral clues . It is a matter of "tools in the toolbox"

A good AME , as an example, has a many good tools to do the job, some are modified for specific jobs . I have met marginal "AME s " who have a "handi-man" or a "woman's" toolbox. Such a disgrace to the industry!!

I am NOT advocating every pilot push the A/C to the extremes! The airline wannabees are taught to get the job done NOTHING more . The career bush pilot does his/her flying with a high level of safety BUT has an ace up the sleeve ( and practices it ) to do/ complete flights that are " quite marginal" and will do it successfully without fail for decades.
I am NOT advocating backside approaches to a transition to glassy water approaches ! I am saying this : I am sure it can be done and i am asking if anyone is doing it with beneficial results for their operation .
---------- ADS -----------
  

Big Pistons Forever
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5046
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by Big Pistons Forever » Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:55 pm

/\ Please don’t try this, it is not a good idea.
---------- ADS -----------
  

corethatthermal
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 220
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by corethatthermal » Tue Jul 16, 2019 9:00 pm

dh2 EATER, A Glassy water approach to a smaller landing body CANNOT be a stabilized approach Because the initial approach may be stabilized BUT the transition is unstabilizing, THEN the final approach MUST be ( more or less lol ) perfectly stabilized to accomplish the procedure. You must unstabilize the initial approach in order to enter into the new approach for glassy water DUH !!! BOY some folks are still in school even when they are on the job !!!
---------- ADS -----------
  

C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1150
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by C.W.E. » Tue Jul 16, 2019 9:22 pm

You would need to add power to bring yourself to the front side of the power curve to execute the approach but i believe it can be done quite successfully with practice . This approach would alleviate concerns with limited space and make a better pilot out of you as well! This approach, of course, would only be done for a small landing area with poor peripheral clues . It is a matter of "tools in the toolbox"
This thread is becoming quite concerning in that there is the danger that some pilots will deviate from proper glassy water flying procedures which can lead to a very serious accident.

The above quote is really troubling for many reasons in my opinion for instance I am having a problem understanding this part.

This approach, of course, would only be done for a small landing area with poor peripheral clues

i have never seen such a situation.

Can you describe this a bit more and let us know where you ran into such a location?
---------- ADS -----------
  

beechnut
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 100
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 10:08 pm
Location: b.c.

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by beechnut » Tue Jul 16, 2019 9:46 pm

Norseman do not go into ponds
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2962
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by PilotDAR » Wed Jul 17, 2019 5:01 am

IF one does a backside approach ( no worries mate, it is calm as hell so no concerns with wind shear induced stall ) you have a lower approach speed at a steeper profile to position yourself for the smaller lake .
If you're flying a back side of the power curve approach, and a steeper approach, you've put yourself in the very worst possible combination for a safe landing, let alone on glassy water. This sounds like a home made procedure, and a poorly thought out one at that! On the back side, you're needing lots of power to maintain flight at all. Having a shallow approach means that you shouldn't need more power to flare to touch down, you can just chop the power upon the touch. If you have a steep approach, you will need to arrest the rate of descent to touch without crashing - that will need lots of power, hopefully you have the additional power you're going to need! And that's for a landing for which you can judge the surface well.

So, my advice is that pilots fly in accordance with established procedures. Hopefully training is being down to established procedures! If flying this way makes me ignorant of other people's home made procedures, I'm happy about that - I don't need to be a witness to test flying glassy water, or behind the power curve landings.
I have met marginal "AME s " who have a "handi-man" or a "woman's" toolbox. Such a disgrace to the industry!!
Happily, I've known some really great AME's who had "women's" toolboxes - they were women.
seeing that Canadians are becoming such . LOL :D
Well, I can't speak for other Canadians, but this Canadian spent three months in hospital after being right seat for a water landing which suddenly went wrong. So I don't mind being thought of as a suck about avoiding scary, home made procedures, particularly on the water. For those new pilots who are just beginning to think for themselves, I want them to think that at least some people's home made ideas are not worth the risk.
---------- ADS -----------
  

DHC2eater
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 11:02 am

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by DHC2eater » Wed Jul 17, 2019 6:35 am

The suggested procedure suggested by "corethatthermal" .............plain and simple......don't do it!

Eater
---------- ADS -----------
  

corethatthermal
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 220
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by corethatthermal » Wed Jul 17, 2019 8:57 am

Of course, i am NOT suggesting it be done . I am asking IF anyone does it ! One can do a simulated one AT ALTITUDE though!
---------- ADS -----------
  

corethatthermal
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 220
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by corethatthermal » Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:05 am

i have never seen such a situation.

Can you describe this a bit more and let us know where you ran into such a location?
The worst one I can remember was trying to land a Twin Otter on a perfectly circular lake. At that point I was kind of new on the machine and found the CAP floats required an approach attitude I wasn't wholly familiar with. I took three tries at this lake. Its perfectly circular shape meant no shoreline in my peripheral vision and the only thing I could see after passing over the beach was the camp on the opposite shore coming up fast.
---------- ADS -----------
  

mmm..bacon
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 155
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 7:19 pm

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by mmm..bacon » Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:30 am

I always wanted to fly a Norseman, despite my peers asking why the heck I wanted to do that. I figured that once I'd learned my craft well enough on 180/185/-2/-3/-3T, then someone would see fit to let me touch a Noorduyn. Sadly, my career has moved past that point now, but I'd like to think that the 2200 on floats before I stopped logging would at least get me looked at to sit in one if I wanted to go back to the bush.

With that said, [and, 'There but for the grace of God go I'] I gots to ask how the hell do you f**k up a glassy water landing at Big Sand? The lake's 50 miles long....
Or is this a case of too little experience in the seat? Gotta say I witnessed some sporty flying from the float operators in YTH in my days there...
---------- ADS -----------
  
Happiness is V1 at YTH!

Meatservo
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2424
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:07 pm
Location: Negative sequencial vortex

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by Meatservo » Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:33 am

corethatthermal wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:16 pm
I am sure it can be done and i am asking if anyone is doing it with beneficial results for their operation . Perhaps I should be asking on an AMERICAN site, seeing that Canadians are becoming such .. LOL :D

Usually on this site, some moron eventually will come around and crash the conversation, get mad, start calling people "..." or whatever, and then there's another thread ruined.

The speed at which this happened this time is breathtaking. Another thing that is breathtaking is the blistering stupidity of the manoeuvre being proposed.

Some guys are embarrassed to be participating in this inane discussion, so they are pretending not to know what you are talking about. I know what you're talking about. You're talking about getting real slow, with your nose way up in the air and lots of power, and sneaking up on the shoreline as though you were trying to land on a gravel-bar or beach. You figure this is a good way to get as low as possible before "transitioning" somehow to your stable, glassy-water configuration just as you get out over the water.

What you're not taking into account is the fact that it's just as easy to get as low as possible crossing the shoreline if you're already configured for a glassy-water landing. There is absolutely no point to the "back side of the power curve" part. Why would you ever do that. What point is there to doing the easy part of the landing approach as slow as you can if you're just going to speed up anyway?

Plus, this configuration change you're proposing is to come in with lots of power, wait till you can't see the water, and then lower the nose, add a whole bunch MORE power to stop the plane from sinking till the plane speeds up, then backing off on the power again presumably, all at an extremely low altitude over a surface you can't see.

This has got to be one of the stupidest fucking things I've ever heard. PLEASE DO go to an American site. I find people who start slinging around Americanisms like "cuck" and "snowflake" have already lost the debate and just looking to trash the place before they leave. So please, leave. You're right, you might fit in better on an American site. Preferably one for private pilots, where you might have more success promulgating your stupid ideas.
---------- ADS -----------
  
If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself

mmm..bacon
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 155
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 7:19 pm

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by mmm..bacon » Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:43 am

Thus sayeth 'The Meat'!
Image
---------- ADS -----------
  
Happiness is V1 at YTH!

ruddersup?
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:10 pm

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by ruddersup? » Wed Jul 17, 2019 4:46 pm

Gentlemen,
Corethatthermal has twigged my memory. We were in this discussion years back and I said there was a way to make the small round glassy water lake more manageable. There is no time to set up a normal glassy water landing. Can't do the 250-300ft/min decent. Make a low pass, not 5 ft low but about 15 ft and then go around. The pass will get air movement and you should get a slight ripple on the water to land. Still use all your senses and, of course, attitude is vital.
---------- ADS -----------
  

shimmydampner
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1535
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:59 pm

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by shimmydampner » Wed Jul 17, 2019 7:36 pm

I think corethatthermal is the reincarnation of aeroancasuperchief who, from what I could gather was an AME with a private license.
---------- ADS -----------
  

DHC2eater
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 11:02 am

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by DHC2eater » Wed Jul 17, 2019 8:56 pm

ruddersup? wrote:
Wed Jul 17, 2019 4:46 pm
Gentlemen,
Corethatthermal has twigged my memory. We were in this discussion years back and I said there was a way to make the small round glassy water lake more manageable. There is no time to set up a normal glassy water landing. Can't do the 250-300ft/min decent. Make a low pass, not 5 ft low but about 15 ft and then go around. The pass will get air movement and you should get a slight ripple on the water to land. Still use all your senses and, of course, attitude is vital.
Holy Shit......Like Forest Gump's mother said....'Stupid is what stupid does'

If the landing surface is that small/challenging then maybe one shouldn't be there!

45 years in the industry and I've never heard of this kind of shit......what happened to throwing out a life jacket to make ripples!!,😖😖 tongue in Cheek!

Eater
---------- ADS -----------
  

ruddersup?
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:10 pm

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by ruddersup? » Thu Jul 18, 2019 5:33 am

Unfortunately my fly-in lakes were small, like in very, no choice. I know some of the comments were made by pilots here that would not attempt to land in most of my lakes. That's fine when you don't have to. I wanted to make a living and did so for more years than most on this site offering their advice. No accidents but oh a lot of experience in 1/2 a century. Small lakes with hills and trees all around. The wind was my biggest challenge and cancelled many afternoon flights that were then done just before dark. Most to carry out of one of the lakes, with my Beaver, was 3 with gear and zilch for fuel. My suggestion for creating a ripple does work but I didn't use it. I went home many times because I didn't like the wind. It's a different world out there. Just thought I would add something interesting to this thread.
I'm sure there aren't many airline types out there that can put a Cub down on a strip 300 ft., or less, so I'm thinking small lakes are similar.
Have at it all you small lake gurus because I'm still learning. I'm not suggesting how I do it either because IMHO there is too much advice on this site for beginners from all the "experts".
---------- ADS -----------
  

C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1150
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by C.W.E. » Thu Jul 18, 2019 2:24 pm

For those who are ignorant , in glassy water conditions,
This quote by corethethermal says far more about him/her than any of us who pointed out just how potentially dangerous his/her glassy water procedures are.
---------- ADS -----------
  

digits_
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2243
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by digits_ » Thu Jul 18, 2019 2:43 pm

DHC2eater wrote:
Wed Jul 17, 2019 8:56 pm
ruddersup? wrote:
Wed Jul 17, 2019 4:46 pm
Gentlemen,
Corethatthermal has twigged my memory. We were in this discussion years back and I said there was a way to make the small round glassy water lake more manageable. There is no time to set up a normal glassy water landing. Can't do the 250-300ft/min decent. Make a low pass, not 5 ft low but about 15 ft and then go around. The pass will get air movement and you should get a slight ripple on the water to land. Still use all your senses and, of course, attitude is vital.
Holy Shit......Like Forest Gump's mother said....'Stupid is what stupid does'

If the landing surface is that small/challenging then maybe one shouldn't be there!

45 years in the industry and I've never heard of this kind of shit......what happened to throwing out a life jacket to make ripples!!,😖😖 tongue in Cheek!

Eater
What's wrong with flying over a lake at 15 ft to make ripples? If it makes your life easier, why not? Could be useful on bigger lakes as well, depending on your comfort and skill level.

It's certainly safer than corethatthermal's proposed technique...
---------- ADS -----------
  

C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1150
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by C.W.E. » Thu Jul 18, 2019 3:36 pm

What's wrong with flying over a lake at 15 ft to make ripples?
How do you safely fly that close to glassy water?
---------- ADS -----------
  

shimmydampner
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1535
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:59 pm

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by shimmydampner » Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:40 pm

digits_ wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 2:43 pm
What's wrong with flying over a lake at 15 ft to make ripples? If it makes your life easier, why not? Could be useful on bigger lakes as well, depending on your comfort and skill level.

It's certainly safer than corethatthermal's proposed technique...
Really? How much PIC float experience is this derived from? I'm not saying this technique is without any merit. I've actually seen it work. Once. But the window in which it's useful is very, very small.
---------- ADS -----------
  

digits_
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2243
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by digits_ » Fri Jul 19, 2019 3:10 am

C.W.E. wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 3:36 pm
What's wrong with flying over a lake at 15 ft to make ripples?
How do you safely fly that close to glassy water?
By not looking at the glassy water but by looking at the shoreline/bush/trees?
---------- ADS -----------
  

digits_
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2243
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by digits_ » Fri Jul 19, 2019 3:12 am

shimmydampner wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:40 pm
digits_ wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 2:43 pm
What's wrong with flying over a lake at 15 ft to make ripples? If it makes your life easier, why not? Could be useful on bigger lakes as well, depending on your comfort and skill level.

It's certainly safer than corethatthermal's proposed technique...
Really? How much PIC float experience is this derived from? I'm not saying this technique is without any merit. I've actually seen it work. Once. But the window in which it's useful is very, very small.
What is your point exactly? You have seen it work but don't agree it works?
---------- ADS -----------
  

shimmydampner
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1535
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:59 pm

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by shimmydampner » Fri Jul 19, 2019 3:39 am

I've seen it work by fluke, however I don't think it's something that could be considered a very useful method, otherwise it would already be common practice. And I'm not sure I'd call purposely flying low over a glassy water surface with no intention of landing, "safer". But maybe I'm wrong, what do I know. In all my years of float flying, I just stuck to the tried and true methods for glassy water.
---------- ADS -----------
  

phillyfan
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 895
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:22 pm

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by phillyfan » Fri Jul 19, 2019 5:36 am

If your not good enough to land on glassy water because you cant tell how high our are, then you are certainly not good enough to zoom back and forth over it trying to make ripples.
---------- ADS -----------
  

corethatthermal
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 220
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by corethatthermal » Fri Jul 19, 2019 3:24 pm

I know what you're talking about. You're talking about getting real slow, with your nose way up in the air and lots of power, and sneaking up on the shoreline as though you were trying to land on a gravel-bar or beach. You figure this is a good way to get as low as possible before "transitioning" somehow to your stable, glassy-water configuration just as you get out over the water.
You know didly squat! I was referring to a round smallish lake that is glassy WITH hills all around ! You need to approach steeply and then transition to glassy technique when you pass the last line of trees. You can approach slower and steeper with the backside and you must transition at treetop height because beyond that , you will not know the height, just the timing at your descent rate. I am still NOT advocating this procedure, I am saying that glassy technique is the safest and i am also saying that backside approaches are SAFE. BUT doing BOTH is in my estimation , a theoretical ideal approach in these conditions IF it can be done perfectly safely.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”