Cessna 337 Ditching

[Waldo Peppar]

http://www.staradvertiser.com/breaking- ... oon-drive/

A Cessna 337 ditches after a landing gear problem. Story says he had a problem before landing and then circled "AIRPORT" for two hours to burn off fuel.....and then " ditches" . I am having some problem with any sort of logic here ( I know ...I wasn't there and don't know all the details).....but I cannot think of any situation where I would chose water over a runway in a 337....if I had a choice.
Any thoughts?

[digits_]

It's one way to bury evidence

Very weird indeed.

[Waldo Peppar]

A different camera angle shot, on the news this morning and just now, showed he had shut down the front engine and the prop was almost horizontal...out of the way. The touch down was smooth with a small skip....it looked like he could have powered right on into shore on the rear engine. The airplane sunk to the wings before he was picked up........ in my mind it would much safer and simpler to scratch up the belly and rear prop.....weird is correct.

[#37]

Maybe he had just read Sully's book.

[JasonE]

Must have had good insurance and wanted to make sure it was a write-off!

[oldtimer]

I knew a guy who had gear problems in a huff puff and by shutting down the front engine and landing on grass, very little damage was done. Mostly paint scratches. The rear prop will still clear the ground. As another poster pointed out, maybe the old mixmaster was hard to sell. Landing in water, especially salt water, is guaranteed to be a write off

[cncpc]

I knew a guy who had gear problems in a huff puff and by shutting down the front engine and landing on grass, very little damage was done. Mostly paint scratches. The rear prop will still clear the ground. As another poster pointed out, maybe the old mixmaster was hard to sell. Landing in water, especially salt water, is guaranteed to be a write off

I think Sully Syndrome and insurance pretty well covers everything, if we add environmentalist as well. What other reason would there be to spend two hours burning off fuel?

I do remember wondering if you'd have to shut the rear down for a gear up on a runway, and I remember I pulled the prop vertical and its a near thing, especially in the flare.

[DanWEC]

Gear down the rear prop can't hit before the tail does. But with the mains up, and the prop vertical, it can just barrrrrely hit, but you'd have to be a few degrees from a tail strike as well, which is pretty wonky.

A company I worked for had a 337 gear up. Pilot error. Bent the front prop and caused a surprisingly small 10k of sheet metal damage. No rear prop damage at idle power.

Fricken weird decision by this guy.

[mbav8r]

Just speculating, if you were flying an airplane with a known fuel leak, would you choose to ditch?
I had a chief pilot try to get me to fly with a fairly serious leak so I'm thinking there are some pilots who might risk it!

[Heliian]

what in the hell? If i was his insurance company I would definitely question his decision to land in water as opposed to a massive international airport with no doubt excellent ARFF. Mind officially boggled.

[cgzro]

According to other reports the pilot had been involved in previous gear up landings which led him to make this decision.

I suppose if previous outcome was dangerous or something a water decision is understandable.

[goingnowherefast]

.

[pelmet]

According to other reports the pilot had been involved in previous gear up landings which led him to make this decision.

I suppose if previous outcome was dangerous or something a water decision is understandable.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of one fatality for an aircraft that did an intentional gear up landing. Landing in the water risks drowning.