Stearman in the Drink

SoonerAviator

SoonerAviator

Final Approach
Joined
Jul 21, 2014
Messages
9,404
Location
Broken Arrow, OK
Display Name
Display name:
SoonerAviator
Looks like someone in Tulsa dropped a Stearman into Keystone Lake. Unknown cause at this point, but both pilot and passenger made it out without any significant injuries and were taken to shore via boat. Luckily it happened on the weekend when there was decent boat traffic to assist them, otherwise it may have been a tougher swim.

https://www.newson6.com/story/630bf...-of-crashed-plane-in-keystone-lake-identified
 
One of the witnesses said she filmed it, and that he did 2 passes. That is worrisome, as it suggests he might have been hotdogging instead of ditching. 66 year old male pilot with a 19 year old female passenger. Neither was seriously injured, which is good. At least with an open cockpit biplane you have a good chance to get out without drowning, as long as you are conscious.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Some of those bass fishing rigs have enough money in electronic sonar/mapping equipment to rival a new Cirrus, lol.
Click to expand...

Buddy of mine who runs a maintenance shop is in the process of installing sonar in a Lake Amphibian.
 
Ed Haywood said:
One of the witnesses said she filmed it, and that he did 2 passes. That is worrisome, as it suggests he might have been hotdogging instead of ditching. 66 year old male pilot with a 19 year old female passenger. Neither was seriously injured, which is good. At least with an open cockpit biplane you have a good chance to get out without drowning, as long as you are conscious.
Click to expand...
I don't think it was an intentional ditching. Other news report I saw this morning said it hit power lines. It's hard to hit power lines unless you are flying pretty low....

Sadly, it wouldn't be the first time a Stearman went into the drink because the pilot was hot dogging at a low altitude with passenger onboard.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I don't think it was an intentional ditching. Other news report I saw this morning said it hit power lines. It's hard to hit power lines unless you are flying pretty low....
Click to expand...
Looked at that as part of a homebuilt accident study a few years ago. About 40% of homebuilt wire-strike accidents occur over water...yet only 7% of US geography is water.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Fearless Tower said:
I don't think it was an intentional ditching. Other news report I saw this morning said it hit power lines. It's hard to hit power lines unless you are flying pretty low....
Click to expand...

Never flown one, but I would assume the visibility from the rear seat past the wings, passenger's head, and various struts and cables would be less than optimal.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Never flown one, but I would assume the visibility from the rear seat past the wings, passenger's head, and various struts and cables would be less than optimal.
Click to expand...
Never flown one either, but I wonder if having a dozen or so cables in your field of view all the time makes one slower to realize there are suddenly a couple of new ones out in front?

Probably not, but who knows?
 
wanttaja said:
Looked at that as part of a homebuilt accident study a few years ago. About 40% of homebuilt wire-strike accidents occur over water...yet only 7% of US geography is water.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
Not surprised. Some people seem to think that because they are over water they can go low without penalty, but seem to forget that power lines cross lakes/rivers.
 
GaryM said:
Never flown one either, but I wonder if having a dozen or so cables in your field of view all the time makes one slower to realize there are suddenly a couple of new ones out in front?

Probably not, but who knows?
Click to expand...

That, and the visibility of most wire lines being almost nil, even without the Stearman's cabling in the way. When I did my wedding proposal over a local lake, I took note of any obstruction/transmission line within 10 miles of the intended spot over the water where we would be low. Luckily, in my case, there wasn't anything of concern for that entire section of lake and I wasn't going below 500' anyway.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Never flown one, but I would assume the visibility from the rear seat past the wings, passenger's head, and various struts and cables would be less than optimal.
Click to expand...
It isn't great.

It's frustrating seeing people continue to do stuff like this while complaining about the FAA getting heavy handed with people like Trent Palmer.

As pilots, we are our worst enemy sometimes.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Never flown one, but I would assume the visibility from the rear seat past the wings, passenger's head, and various struts and cables would be less than optimal.
Click to expand...
When you learn that Things like power lines in front of you extend out to the sides past all that stuff, it makes it a lot easier to figure out.

the only time I was uncomfortable with what I could see in a Stearman was when they scheduled us for hopping rides he same day that a fly-in breakfast was happening…taxiway was barely wide enough to do shallow S-turns, and people all over the place next to it.
 
wanttaja said:
Looked at that as part of a homebuilt accident study a few years ago. About 40% of homebuilt wire-strike accidents occur over water...yet only 7% of US geography is water.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

Interesting, but not terribly surprising when you think about it. To hit wires you have to fly well below 500 feet AGL. There are only 2 places you can legally do that: open water and sparsely populated areas. But many sparsely populated areas of land would be unsuitable for low flying. Mountains, rolling woodlands, etc. Even flat farmland is going to have treelines, windmills, radio antennas, water towers, etc. So water is by far the most sensible place to fly low, if you are so inclined.

One point that came up in the discussion about the reckless flying charges at Lake of the Woods: FAR 91.119 does not say "water". It says "open water." I can't find a legal definition of the term, but the legend on aeronautical charts suggests that term applies to ocean and very large bodies of water, not small inland lakes and rivers.

Regardless, I would guess power lines qualify as a structure, and this poor fellow certainly got closer than 500 feet!
 
Ed Haywood said:
Interesting, but not terribly surprising when you think about it. To hit wires you have to fly well below 500 feet AGL. There are only 2 places you can legally do that: open water and sparsely populated areas. But many sparsely populated areas of land would be unsuitable for low flying. Mountains, rolling woodlands, etc. Even flat farmland is going to have treelines, windmills, radio antennas, water towers, etc. So water is by far the most sensible place to fly low, if you are so inclined.
Click to expand...

Perfectly true. What *did* surprise me, when I did the study, was how often these wires were over lakes. Didn't split that out during the analysis, but it occurred enough that I mentioned it in the article. Mind you, the wire strikes might have been over coves or very narrow portions of lakes, but it does make you think.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Perfectly true. What *did* surprise me, when I did the study, was how often these wires were over lakes. Didn't split that out during the analysis, but it occurred enough that I mentioned it in the article. Mind you, the wire strikes might have been over coves or very narrow portions of lakes, but it does make you think.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

Certainly an argument for an inspection pass before getting down on the deck.
 
What a shame. Used to fly into Galesburg for the annual Stearman fly-in for a number of years. Spent many an hour working on PT-17s.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Never flown one, but I would assume the visibility from the rear seat past the wings, passenger's head, and various struts and cables would be less than optimal.
Click to expand...

Straight ahead in flight it's not too bad, you should be able to see anything you're going to run into. Nose high during climbout, flare, or on the ground it's a different story, you can't see anything out front. It's not the cables and struts, it's the forward fuselage and the fact that you're sitting so far aft.
 
Update for NTSB report: Pilot flew into powerlines (no surprise). Passenger said the pilot told her that they would do what he called "water dancing" shortly prior to noticing they were at the same height as the power transmission towers. Even worse, the pilot instructed the young lady passenger to say it was engine failure or the insurance company wouldn't cover it. Girl was underwater for up to 20 seconds trying to undo the seat belt which the pilot latched for her during preflight when she couldn't figure it out. Almost cost her life.

https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=105808
 
Last edited:
Sure seems to be a number of "stupid pilot tricks" causing accidents lately. I would be devastated to think my stupidity almost cost another person their life. More amazing that the person that should have integrity asked the person they almost killed to lie to federal investigators ...

I don't see this one as a second hand lion but rather a ___________, (interrupted!!!) Mom said if I didn't have anything nice to say ...
 
SoonerAviator said:
Girl was underwater for up to 20 seconds trying to undo the seat belt which the pilot latched for her during preflight when she couldn't figure it out. Almost cost her life.
Click to expand...
I’ve had people who couldn’t figure out how to unbuckle a seatbelt sitting on the ramp. 20 seconds is pretty good under water.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I’ve had people who couldn’t figure out how to unbuckle a seatbelt sitting on the ramp. 20 seconds is pretty good under water.
Click to expand...

20 seconds is a tremendous amount of time when you consider the grim reaper may be approaching.

I always do the preflight briefing with passengers (as I'm certain we all do) and make certain they understand how to loosen & unbuckle the belts ...
 
MauleSkinner said:
I’ve had people who couldn’t figure out how to unbuckle a seatbelt sitting on the ramp. 20 seconds is pretty good under water.
Click to expand...

Well, she couldn't figure out how to get it fastened on her own so the pilot did it for her. However, it was specifically noted in the report that he didn't explain to her how to fasten or unfasten it, so that tidbit of info during the preflight may have let her egress in half that time. Who knows. Lots of links in the accident chain.
 
Daleandee said:
20 seconds is a tremendous amount of time when you consider the grim reaper may be approaching.
Click to expand...
It is…part of what makes it “pretty good”.

I always do the preflight briefing with passengers (as I'm certain we all do) and make certain they understand how to loosen & unbuckle the belts ...
Click to expand...
As do I…and yet, they can’t figure it out at the end of the flight.

SoonerAviator said:
Well, she couldn't figure out how to get it fastened on her own so the pilot did it for her. However, it was specifically noted in the report that he didn't explain to her how to fasten or unfasten it…
Click to expand...
I didn’t read the report…did she say that, or did the pilot? It’s amazing what we think people are hearing when they’re not.
 
MauleSkinner said:
It is…part of what makes it “pretty good”.

As do I…and yet, they can’t figure it out at the end of the flight.


I didn’t read the report…did she say that, or did the pilot? It’s amazing what we think people are hearing when they’re not.
Click to expand...
She said
 
MauleSkinner said:
It is…part of what makes it “pretty good”.

As do I…and yet, they can’t figure it out at the end of the flight.


I didn’t read the report…did she say that, or did the pilot? It’s amazing what we think people are hearing when they’re not.
Click to expand...
She said that in her NTSB interview.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Yeah, thinking there ought to be a little more penalty than a 709-ride for this guy. Multiple deficiencies in his conduct and some hazardous attitudes as well. Killed a beautiful PT-17 in the process.
Click to expand...
Considering he's a CFI and ATP and, according to two witnesses, lied to the NTSB, I'd bet on certificate action.
 
Velocity173 said:
Lucky. Could’ve ended up like this..

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&ID=C8CB9921-CF36-455C-A062-A65E7CA514D6
Click to expand...

One contributing factor to both these accidents may be a misunderstanding of the minimum altitude regulation. It is commonly described in internet discussions as " 500 feet ... except over water". But FAR 91.119 actually says "500 feet ... except over open water." (emphasis added)

Open water is not specifically defined in the FAR, but other FAA references such as the VFR sectional chart legend apply that term to large bodies of water such as oceans, bays, gulfs, and "exceptionally large lakes". Dunno if the hotdogging might be reduced if they were aware they were violating the FAR at the time.

open water.PNG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top