Floatplane Crash Thread

[FishermanIvan]

Any suggestions on how this might have happened and what could be done to prevent it....

C-GCWO, a float-equipped Cessna 185F operated by Gogal Air Services Ltd., was conducting a flight from Snow Lake Water Aerodrome (CKM5), MB, to Lac du Bonnet (North) Water Aerodrome (CJS9), MB. The aircraft landed safely at CJS9 and began taxiing to the dock. After approximately 400 meters into the taxi, the right front float began to dig in under the waves and, shortly after, the left front float followed. The aircraft then slowly nosed over and sank becoming inverted with the floats keeping it afloat. The pilot, wearing his undeployed inflatable personal flotation device, was able to open the door and get out of the aircraft with no injuries. The aircraft was flipped back onto the floats and removed from the water in the following days by a contract maintenance facility. Upon inspection, it was noted that there was no structural damage to the aircraft.

....from tsb.

I’d assume the floats were full of water and weren’t pumped out at the start of the day, so they eventually stopped floating.

[phillyfan]

Not nearly enough info. I would not even pretend to guess.

[pelmet]

From TSB...

C-GTMW, a privately-registered De Havilland Aircraft of Canada DHC-3T (Turbo Otter) airplane,
equipped with amphibious floats, was conducting a local flight under visual flight rules from
Harrison Hot Springs (CAE7), BC with 1 pilot and 6 passengers on board. After starting the engine,
the rope that had been securing the aircraft to the dock detached. The airplane then moved
forward. The pilot feathered the propeller and shut down the engine and, as the engine and
propeller were slowing, the aircraft struck a boat that was parked at the dock. The 1 person on
board the boat sustained minor injuries; all occupants on board the aircraft were uninjured. The
boat and aircraft sustained minor damage.

Not sure if something gave way or if it was a poorly tied rope.

[7ECA]

Not sure if something gave way or if it was a poorly tied rope.

It's a PT-6'd Turbo Otter, why anyone would start it out of BETA or feather is beyond me... for this exact f'ing reason. There's also reverse, for situations in which you've begun moving forward when you don't want to be, but I suspect the report may be generous in its timeline - as in the PT-6 hadn't fully spooled up before things went sideways.

The other question that boggles the mind, is why many Otter floggers want to start up with only one rope in place. Too many turbine floatplanes have come to grief at the docks when ropes slip or break.

[pelmet]

Not sure if something gave way or if it was a poorly tied rope.

It's a PT-6'd Turbo Otter, why anyone would start it out of BETA or feather is beyond me... for this exact f'ing reason. There's also reverse, for situations in which you've begun moving forward when you don't want to be, but I suspect the report may be generous in its timeline - as in the PT-6 hadn't fully spooled up before things went sideways.

The other question that boggles the mind, is why many Otter floggers want to start up with only one rope in place. Too many turbine floatplanes have come to grief at the docks when ropes slip or break.

Is there a higher risk of rope slip/break for a turbine version of a floatplane versus a piston version?

[TeePeeCreeper]

Not sure if something gave way or if it was a poorly tied rope.

It's a PT-6'd Turbo Otter, why anyone would start it out of BETA or feather is beyond me... for this exact f'ing reason. There's also reverse, for situations in which you've begun moving forward when you don't want to be, but I suspect the report may be generous in its timeline - as in the PT-6 hadn't fully spooled up before things went sideways.

The other question that boggles the mind, is why many Otter floggers want to start up with only one rope in place. Too many turbine floatplanes have come to grief at the docks when ropes slip or break.

Is there a higher risk of rope slip/break for a turbine version of a floatplane versus a piston version?

That’s a great question Pelmet.

I personally believe that with a good dock hand or two.. that it’s a moot point. With that said, my personal sentiment is that the piston will immediately tug on the lines tied to the dock versus a turbine (with a properly utilized pitch lock) won’t “tug” as much until commanded out of beta thus reducing the likelihood of mishaps.


TPC

[pelmet]

It's a PT-6'd Turbo Otter, why anyone would start it out of BETA or feather is beyond me... for this exact f'ing reason. There's also reverse, for situations in which you've begun moving forward when you don't want to be, but I suspect the report may be generous in its timeline - as in the PT-6 hadn't fully spooled up before things went sideways.

The other question that boggles the mind, is why many Otter floggers want to start up with only one rope in place. Too many turbine floatplanes have come to grief at the docks when ropes slip or break.

Is there a higher risk of rope slip/break for a turbine version of a floatplane versus a piston version?

That’s a great question Pelmet.

I personally believe that with a good dock hand or two.. that it’s a moot point. With that said, my personal sentiment is that the piston will immediately tug on the lines tied to the dock versus a turbine (with a properly utilized pitch lock) won’t “tug” as much until commanded out of beta thus reducing the likelihood of mishaps.


TPC

Thanks,

I guess 7ECA is simply talking about heavier aircraft being more likely to break a rope. I had not considered that as I am only flying relatively smaller floatplane types. But there is the possibility of something bigger soon.

[scdriver]

Not sure if something gave way or if it was a poorly tied rope.

It's a PT-6'd Turbo Otter, why anyone would start it out of BETA or feather is beyond me... for this exact f'ing reason. There's also reverse, for situations in which you've begun moving forward when you don't want to be, but I suspect the report may be generous in its timeline - as in the PT-6 hadn't fully spooled up before things went sideways.

The other question that boggles the mind, is why many Otter floggers want to start up with only one rope in place. Too many turbine floatplanes have come to grief at the docks when ropes slip or break.

If it’s in feather when you start, 2 ropes. If it’s on the latches one rope is fine. When you start it in feather it’s about 10s after completion of the start sequence before you have any prop control

[enbt]

In what sort of situation would you be starting any floatplane while tied to the dock, other than to warm up a piston? Is this how they do it at Harbour Air or other busy docks? I’ve spent my whole career flying floatplanes both piston and turbine and have never once started up while tied to a dock, let alone needed to debate whether it’s better to use one of two ropes.

[scdriver]

In what sort of situation would you be starting any floatplane while tied to the dock, other than to warm up a piston? Is this how they do it at Harbour Air or other busy docks? I’ve spent my whole career flying floatplanes both piston and turbine and have never once started up while tied to a dock, let alone needed to debate whether it’s better to use one of two ropes.

We start the turbines while tied up and usually back it up on the back rope to pivot out. It works well at the busy docks and usually they’re shut down in feather so pushing off before start is a no go then. Other docks on charters when it’s shut on the latches I’ll sometimes push it off and then start, but depends on wind/current and surroundings.

[enbt]

In what sort of situation would you be starting any floatplane while tied to the dock, other than to warm up a piston? Is this how they do it at Harbour Air or other busy docks? I’ve spent my whole career flying floatplanes both piston and turbine and have never once started up while tied to a dock, let alone needed to debate whether it’s better to use one of two ropes.

We start the turbines while tied up and usually back it up on the back rope to pivot out. It works well at the busy docks and usually they’re shut down in feather so pushing off before start is a no go then. Other docks on charters when it’s shut on the latches I’ll sometimes push it off and then start, but depends on wind/current and surroundings.

Makes sense, thanks for that explanation. It's always interesting to see/hear how other people do things and maybe add another tool to the toolkit. I take it in that situation you would need a reliable dock person to undo the back rope once the nose is pointed out.

Sorry for the thread hijack, now back to our original programming.

[pelmet]

In what sort of situation would you be starting any floatplane while tied to the dock, other than to warm up a piston? Is this how they do it at Harbour Air or other busy docks? I’ve spent my whole career flying floatplanes both piston and turbine and have never once started up while tied to a dock, let alone needed to debate whether it’s better to use one of two ropes.

We start the turbines while tied up and usually back it up on the back rope to pivot out. It works well at the busy docks and usually they’re shut down in feather so pushing off before start is a no go then. Other docks on charters when it’s shut on the latches I’ll sometimes push it off and then start, but depends on wind/current and surroundings.

Sounds like most operators don’t do this but a few do. Anyone have a video link and explanation of specifically what is happening?

Also, do any piston aircraft do this?

[scdriver]

In what sort of situation would you be starting any floatplane while tied to the dock, other than to warm up a piston? Is this how they do it at Harbour Air or other busy docks? I’ve spent my whole career flying floatplanes both piston and turbine and have never once started up while tied to a dock, let alone needed to debate whether it’s better to use one of two ropes.

We start the turbines while tied up and usually back it up on the back rope to pivot out. It works well at the busy docks and usually they’re shut down in feather so pushing off before start is a no go then. Other docks on charters when it’s shut on the latches I’ll sometimes push it off and then start, but depends on wind/current and surroundings.

Makes sense, thanks for that explanation. It's always interesting to see/hear how other people do things and maybe add another tool to the toolkit. I take it in that situation you would need a reliable dock person to undo the back rope once the nose is pointed out.

Sorry for the thread hijack, now back to our original programming.

Exactly, you need good dock staff or it can go wrong fast. That’s how seair went into the back of an otter a few years ago, untied while coming out of feather at the dock. Whenever I’m suspect of the dock support I make sure I’m shut on the latches.

[TeePeeCreeper]

Entb,

You’ve brought some great points to the discussion.

In my experience it’s always preferable to start any seaplane at the dock if able.

Since you mentioned a thread drift….

The 208 will produce almost 40 ft-pounds of thrust from the right side exhaust. No bueno when docked on the left float and facing quarterly wind conditions.

*dock hands matter*

TPC

[The Hammer]

"dock hands matter* lol

That's why they get paid the big bucks and jump on the garbage bags of empties like Gollum. "My precious....."

[pelmet]

From TSB...

C-FJFL, an Atleo River Air Service Limited De Havilland Aircraft of Canada DHC-2 MK I (Beaver) floatplane, was conducting a flight, under visual flight rules, from Hot Springs Cove, BC, to Tofino Harbour Water Aerodrome (CAB4), BC. While landing westbound at CAB4, just prior to the intended touchdown, the left float contacted a water peak where two boat wakes had collided. The aircraft bounced and the nose yawed slightly to the left. The right float then touched down and the subsequent side load caused the right wing to dip and contact the water. When the wing tip contacted the water, it acted as a pivot point around which the floatplane spun 180 degrees. The floatplane came to an abrupt stop and remained upright. The pilot was able to then taxi to the dock. There were no injuries. The aircraft sustained substantial damage to the right wing and flap.

[OneYonge]

The 208 will produce almost 40 ft-pounds of thrust from the right side exhaust. No bueno when docked on the left float and facing quarterly wind conditions.

Just push it out 90deg and grab the tail. Some in Ontario operate 208s and DHC3s as if there are no prop locks or reverse.

Maybe carryover from radials?

[nobody23]

The 208 will produce almost 40 ft-pounds of thrust from the right side exhaust. No bueno when docked on the left float and facing quarterly wind conditions.

Just push it out 90deg and grab the tail. Some in Ontario operate 208s and DHC3s as if there are no prop locks or reverse.

Maybe carryover from radials?

Here's my new toolbox, but you can only use the tools in the top drawer.

[pelmet]

Glassy water again. It requires recognition, discipline, and patience.......

C-GAZB, a privately operated Cessna 180J, was conducting a visual flight rules flight
from Lac Alexandre, located approximately 80 nautical miles northwest of its destination,
the Lac-des-Rapides water aerodrome, Sept-Îles (CSM8), QC, with a pilot and a passenger. Upon landing, the aircraft struck the mirror-like surface of the lake, resulting in a loss of lateral control, resulting in both wingtips being severely damaged. The aircraft came to rest on its floats, which showed no apparent damage. The passenger sustained minor injuries and was taken to hospital for examination.

....from TSB.

[OneYonge]

The 208 will produce almost 40 ft-pounds of thrust from the right side exhaust. No bueno when docked on the left float and facing quarterly wind conditions.

Just push it out 90deg and grab the tail. Some in Ontario operate 208s and DHC3s as if there are no prop locks or reverse.

Maybe carryover from radials?

Here's my new toolbox, but you can only use the tools in the top drawer.

Pt6 don't always come with prop locks, and a lot just don't like the noise beta makes around docks. So they get creative.

[pelmet]

From TSB...

C-GVQA, a privately operated Cessna 172K on floats, was on a visual flight rules flight from Gravel Lake, QC to Lac-des-Écorces (CTV2), QC. Upon landing, the pilot struck the lake and lost control of the aircraft, causing damage to the floats and wings. The aircraft ended up overturned in the water. The pilot evacuated and was not injured.

[pelmet]

Pilots not doing control checks(you can have a collision and not realize it - happened at my company resulting in a locked elevator that was discovered prior to takeoff).


C-GTBY, a Cessna 208 operated by Superior Airways Limited, was conducting a VFR flight from
Hansen Lake, ON, to Red Lake (Howey Bay) Water Aerodrome (CKS4), ON. Normal flight control
feedback required for the initial takeoff run was observed. When the airplane became airborne, the
pilot continued to apply aft input and limited elevator travel was experienced; inhibiting the desired
pitch attitude for climb. The pilot made an immediate left turn into the wind for a landing. With
limited elevator control input for the flare phase, the plane contacted the water at a harder than
normal rate resulting in substantial damage to the airplane. The were no injuries.
The operator's maintenance noted the right elevator was deformed, and a brief test found flight
control pitch input to be obstructed consistent with a visual observation of limited elevator travel. It
was reported that the damage to the elevator was consistent with a collision with an object prior to
the takeoff run. A flight control check was performed during the first flight of the day by the pilot but
not on subsequent flights. The operator now requires their checklist items to be read and do action,
including a flight control check prior to all takeoffs.

....from TSB.

[phillyfan]

If you hit shit with the tail. Call an AME

[pelmet]

Another nice 185 crashes......

C-GYFW, a privately registered, Cessna A185F floatplane departed Ootsa Lake, BC (53º 48' N, 126º 03’ W) on a recreational flight to Nadsilnich Lake, BC (53º 42' N, 122º 52’ W) with only the pilot on board. In preparation for landing at Nadsilnich Lake, the pilot conducted 2 inspection passes and noted that the water was glassy but clear of any obstacles. Visibility was approximately 6 statute miles due to smoke in the area. During final approach, the aircraft touched down on the water sooner than the pilot expected. The aircraft overturned and came to an abrupt halt. The pilot egressed underwater through the pilot’s door and climbed onto the aircraft’s floats where they were able to flag down and get assistance from fishers in a nearby boat. The emergency locator transmitter (ELT) did not activate. The pilot received minor injuries. The aircraft was substantially damaged. The aircraft was recovered from the lake, and transported to a facility where the damage will be assessed.

....from TSB.

[pelmet]

C-FEUJ, a Piper Pa12 on floats in a privately operated fleet, was conducting a visual flight rules flight to and from Lac des Deux Montagnes as part of solo practice under the authorization of an instructor pilot. During a final turn, the elevator trim control lever broke. The pilot attempted to land and lost control; the left wingtip touched the water, the aircraft then rolled partially to the right, and the right wing struck the water. The pilot managed to bring the aircraft back to the dock and noted damage to the right wing and the left wing tip. There were no injuries.


.....from TSB via Google Translate.