How to groundloop a flying boat

[xsbank]

Beautiful day, light winds, smooth long lake. Perfect for float ops, in fact. Not glassy.
Fancy, powerful, proven flying boat.

Why are you in such a great charging rush to defend this pilot/crew? People screw up.

When this approach became unstable, just like any other aircraft, especially in something with multiple engines or any kind of mass (he could have gotten away with a few whoop-de-doos in a Beaver) you go around or you try to be a hero. This guy is not a hero.

[Siddley Hawker]

^
+1.

[TG]

Yes xsbank and Siddley Hawker perfect float ops....Right up until they hit this thing.

Couple of German's comments, if you Google this event and translate it, talk about the Cockpit being flooded by rushing water from this puncture.
Major distraction! And what about drag, center of gravity!? How fast it went away?
Maybe they could see nothing at all any more in the cockpit (gushing water remember !?) and voluntary kicked a rudder to do this water loop, who knows.

They probably had this puncture fairly early, maybe even right at touch down during what was supposed to be only a touch & Go. That would explain this rush of water inside, nose diving, lost of controls and everything else that make it really looks like a botched water landing. At first sight!

I repeat: At first sight.

Now if you want to stay blunt about this incident and still blame the crew.
Not the end of the world.

[GyvAir]

I wasn't putting forth an opinion, I was merely speculating on a scenario.

I’m surprised at how sure so many people here are about what did or did not happen, based on a couple YouTube videos, a few photos and some bad google translations.

Unstable approach? The posted Vimeo video doesn’t even show it. The first part of the video is of a fly-by, not an approach.
Here’s a version showing the approach:

[Siddley Hawker]

TG you seem to be well versed on this accident, so what did they hit? What I saw was an airplane being forced onto the water forward of the step and it began to go squirrelly. After that point the pilot was along for the ride. My first impression was that he'd lost a nosewheel door.

[86583]

I'm normally just a lurker here because of the abuse that seems to be so common place on avcanada but I can't help myself not weighing in on this one... As a long time water pilot and current multi engine flying boat pilot I'll throw my 2 cents in..

XS and J31 and hawker have it nailed.. When I watched the video for the first time (not knowing the outcome) the first thing that came to my mind was "hot dog" the wingtip that close to the water was just asking for it... I was waiting for it to touch and then a cartwheel... But all was okay..

Then as he approached the water for landing you could see the forebody was so flat to being negative in angle it made my sphincter tighten waiting for the aftermath... When the hull touches the water and the bow begins to dig you see absolutely no indication of a back check in the elevators... As the pirouette of the water loop begins in my opinion the full left rudder deflection is caused by air load from the side slamming them over and nothing to do with pilot input, who by the way is probably also dealing with centrifugal force and hanging on for dear life... If these guys had been flying a PBY they wouldn't have gotten away that easily....

The debate as to whether the puncture caused this, I can't see it... Whether the puncture was caused by a stress fracture or foreign object, who knows... Even if it was there prior to the landing and a proper landing was conducted it wouldn't have caused this.. No doubt it would have sunk after the landing but not caused a waterloop like this... It would be interesting to know the story behind all those plates in the vicinity of the puncture... After thoughts, or repairs...

Anyone who operates on the water in floats or boats has had a fair share of "oh f_ck" moments... I know i've had mine...Sometimes we get lucky like these guys, and some times we don't...

Offer still stands hawker for a ride in your favorite flying boat if you ever make it out to the west coast

[CLguy]

I think PilotDar has nailed it.

Meatservo you defend the hull design and then mention how bad things can get on CAP floats. They have been flown all over the world in every type of water conditions as well and we both know at the hands of the wrong pilot they will eat you for breakfast. I see very similar features between the CAP float and the hull design of the Dornier.

There is no way that small hole in the hull caused the water loop.

[TG]

Random article about it.
https://www.austrianwings.info/2015/07/ ... lfgangsee/

schlug ein faustgroßes Loch in den Rumpf, wodurch es auch zu einem massiven Wassereinbruch kam.”

Rough Google translate: "Struck a fist-sized hole in the hull, which led also to a massive flooding"

Kurz nach dem Aufsetzen wurde das historische Flugboot plötzlich stark nach links gerissen.

"the historic seaplane was suddenly torn heavily to the left"

der Pilot „Wasser aus dem Cockpit geschöpft”

"the pilot "scooped water out of the cockpit"


Blaming this particular crew for this particular event is very unfair.
And as long as they won't be an proper incident report proving otherwise I will still think that way.

[GyvAir]

[Meatservo]

I think PilotDar has nailed it.

Meatservo you defend the hull design and then mention how bad things can get on CAP floats. They have been flown all over the world in every type of water conditions as well and we both know at the hands of the wrong pilot they will eat you for breakfast. I see very similar features between the CAP float and the hull design of the Dornier.

There is no way that small hole in the hull caused the water loop.

I think we are on the same page about the hull though, aren't we? I think you can admire a design while at the same time acknowledging that it's intolerant of mishandling. I don't have any particular scientific reason to admire the design of the dornier hull, I only pointed out that it was a successful design, therefore like the CAP 12000, wasn't eating enough pilots for breakfast that it was much of a factor in the design's safety record. I think we can agree, if you mishandle a CAP float, what it does next is your fault, regardless of its reputation. Most people have no trouble with it at all after a bit of practice.

I too am inclined to agree with PilotDAR.

[PilotDAR]

I give less credibility to translated "media" reports for precision. The photos of hull damage certainly make me think that the pilots suddenly got wet. I hope suddenly getting a lot wet does not become a reason to loose control of the aircraft - but maybe, if it reached the level of incapacitation. From the history of that model aircraft, I credit the hull with being rugged, so to get a hole there, they must have hit something. But it was small, because it did not "Titanic" the hull. It hit, and bounced off. Should it have been seen first? Maybe, that becomes the "accident" element of what happened. Maybe the better pilot action would have been to effectively check the area first.

Maybe the water loop was deliberate, if so, it worked, but why was it needed? If a submarine suddenly surfaced in front of you, fair enough, but in the apparent conditions, not much else should surprise a pilot so much that a water loop becomes the preferred action to going around. At that speed, raise the nose a touch, and he'd have been it the air again in an instant! Or maybe a "dead end approach? (I can't tell). When I fly dead end approaches to the water, I make darned sure the area is good, and everything is working for me to get in short and stable.

I'll be surprise if we ever see a definitive "report" on this, it was only just an "accident", so they may not bother delving deeper than a pilot report, which probably won't rise to our surface.

Though I obviously have not flown a Dornier, the flying boats I have flown are pretty forgiving of a well executed step turn. But, while fooling around, I have reached the point at which full opposite rudder was required to prevent a water loop - it comes up on you quickly, if you're not paying attention!

I remain to criticize what appears to be a too fast, too flat landing, which reduces directional stability, and greatly increases the risk that a failing of the nosewheel door will cause a big problem. In those circumstances - which the pilot did control, a little thing becomes a big think, and the careless use of the rudder(s) will end badly. The aircraft was not being flown defensively. I could not look the boss in the eye after a landing like that, and say I did my best.....

[CLguy]

Meatservo I agree! It looks like a very unforgiving hull design and by watching the Dornier vs Zodiak video I would suspect that all they need to do is replace the clown in the left seat with someone that actually knows what he is doing. Unbelievable that someone didn't die in that video.

[TG]

This Zodiac really bad pooch (no argument with that) happened 8 years ago.
Nowhere it says we are talking about the same crew.

[PilotDAR]

watching the Dornier vs Zodiak video

Yeah, that was un nerving... I have to think that two idling PT-6's could be nudged into zero trust, or feathered, and allow events to stabilize, rather than running over people...

[ragbagflyer]

The reverse thrust takes the airflow off the tail, and makes it pretty ineffective,

That's certainly not my turbine float plane experience, although I haven't flown a flying boat. If rudder authority does diminish it's usually well after significant deceleration, not right after touchdown.

I can't figure out why more left rudder was fed in after this machine started to go around though. That's bizarre.

[Siddley Hawker]

Offer still stands hawker for a ride in your favorite flying boat if you ever make it out to the west coast.

Offer noted. Can you ply the guard dog with doggie treats, or will he bite my leg off?

[PilotDAR]

If rudder authority does diminish it's usually well after significant deceleration, not right after touchdown.

My (unpleasant) experience with reverse on the step was a piston powered floatplane with reverse. I selected reverse to slow while still on the step, and the aircraft became sloppy in pitch and yaw, to the point where I did not feel I had adequate control to assure safe operation as I slowed. My experience with reverse in Lake Amphibians was a little better in this regard, but still not great, nor worth the risk. The Lake, like other flying boats is a little more tolerant of pitch and yaw divergence while on the step, though as we have seen, there is still a limit! When you have to start applying large control inputs to maintain the intended path, it just gets more messy....

The massive disruption of airflow over the tail resulting from the use of reverse is obviously not what you want if the tail is still working to control the aircraft. This extends right down to doors open while slow taxiing, I found that reverse thrust would pull the open door fully open against the wing strut, which Cessna does not like.

Therefore, the Flight manual supplement I presented for approval of the reverse installation included a prohibition on the use of reverse on the step, and a caution about it's use with an opened door.

While flying the Caravan amphib I did not explore the use of reverse on the step, as I was not testing that characteristic. In hind sight, I'm glad I did not!

[ragbagflyer]

I routinely use a handfull of reverse on an Otter and Caravan, and I've used it when I flew a turbo beaver as well. There's certainly nothing to fear. I obviously come out of reverse of as the aircraft falls off the step to prevent spray coming through the prop and air intake. In the van there can be a slight pull to the left (garrett engine) if you hold full reverse longer than necessary, but it's slight and only happens when you're slowed down enough that there loss of control is not an issue. My guess is that the further from the engines the tail is the less of on an issue it is. Also the faster your airspeed (like right on touchdown), the less the effect of reverse will be on directional control.

[Liquid Charlie]

piston powered floatplane with reverse. I selected reverse to slow while still on the step, and the aircraft became sloppy in pitch and yaw

a SeaBee is just naturally like that in any powered regime

[PilotDAR]

I've never flown a Seabee, though will look forward to the experience! My only piston reverse experience is on the Lake LA-4 and C-182. It was the 182 which was intolerant of use of reverse while on the step, the LA-4 seemed an bit less touchy...