Cory Robins Crash in River - no injuries. (Video)

Glad he didn't get hurt. I wonder if he flew that plane out of there once they got it out of the river. I sure wouldn't.
 
Jesse D said:
Glad he didn't get hurt. I wonder if he flew that plane out of there once they got it out of the river. I sure wouldn't.
Click to expand...
Really? If it ran, I'd fly it right back out.
 
That explanation makes no sense. If the fuel is pumping into the tank, running the pump dry wouldn't matter.
 
Risky flying is dangerous. Too many videos of back country extremism occurring at a faster pace.

Glad the pilot was OK.
 
It's nice he and the aircraft were relatively unscathed. Great lesson for us all...
 
Lindberg said:
That explanation makes no sense. If the fuel is pumping into the tank, running the pump dry wouldn't matter.
Click to expand...
Assuming his aux tank "tees" into the existing fuel line from the wing tank, and he is pumping enough air into that fuel line to bubble up into the wing tank, then ain't no fuel getting to the engine from that tank. Apparently that is why he should have been running the engine on the left tank while pumping into the right.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Assuming his aux tank "tees" into the existing fuel line from the wing tank, and he is pumping enough air into that fuel line to bubble up into the wing tank, then ain't no fuel getting to the engine from that tank. Apparently that is why he should have been running the engine on the left tank while pumping into the right.
Click to expand...
Kind of a dangerous situation, but there likely isn't another way to run fuel into the tank without carving a new hole.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Really? If it ran, I'd fly it right back out.
Click to expand...
I’d be worried there was soot and sand in the engine and oil through the exhaust and breather . Also figured my luck was running thin.
 
Last edited:
Jesse D said:
I’d be worried that there was water soot and sand in the engine through the exhaust and breather. Also figured my luck was running thin.
Click to expand...

Looked to me like only the nosebowl got wet. I'd worry about water in the carb (assuming it had one), but the exhaust isn't a concern. I would pull the bottom plugs and turn the engine over, just in case. My real concern would be any impact damage on the crank, crankcase, etc.

All that said, if it ran up OK, I'd probably fly it out.
 
If you run the video to the very end, there's a shot of the plane sitting three-point in the water with the engine idling. You can see the dented spinner.

Plane I used to fly flipped upside down in Lake Washington. They had the engine running again in three hours. Before my time....

Ron Wanttaja
 
kyleb said:
...All that said, if it ran up OK, I'd probably fly it out.
Click to expand...

So what am I missing here?
If the water was deep enough to create sufficient drag on those big "flotation" tires as they sank below the surface to put the plane on its nose, why wouldn't there still be too much depth/drag to prevent a takeoff?
 
GRG55 said:
So what am I missing here?
If the water was deep enough to create sufficient drag on those big "flotation" tires as they sank below the surface to put the plane on its nose, why wouldn't there still be too much depth/drag to prevent a takeoff?
Click to expand...

There's a sandbar a hundred feet ahead of where he flipped it.
 
kyleb said:
Looked to me like only the nosebowl got wet. I'd worry about water in the carb (assuming it had one), but the exhaust isn't a concern. I would pull the bottom plugs and turn the engine over, just in case. My real concern would be any impact damage on the crank, crankcase, etc.

All that said, if it ran up OK, I'd probably fly it out.
Click to expand...

8:05 to about 8:09...the prop wasn't turning when the plane nosed in. Crank should be OK. I would agree, if engine started and ran, I'd fly it out (after my knees stopped shaking and as soon as I found my checklist).
 
Il
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Assuming his aux tank "tees" into the existing fuel line from the wing tank, and he is pumping enough air into that fuel line to bubble up into the wing tank, then ain't no fuel getting to the engine from that tank. Apparently that is why he should have been running the engine on the left tank while pumping into the right.
Click to expand...
He said it pumps into the tank. And he was showing bubbles on the left but talking about the right tank.
 
Jesse D said:
I wonder if he flew that plane out of there once they got it out of the river. I sure wouldn't.
Click to expand...

It is all about risk assessment. After a thorough post incident checkout and everything checked out Ok, I would not hesitate.

However, I would not try to talk someone into flying the plane out if that person had any doubts whatsoever. I would accept that persons decision.
 
Zeldman said:
It is all about risk assessment. After a thorough post incident checkout and everything checked out Ok, I would not hesitate.

However, I would not try to talk someone into flying the plane out if that person had any doubts whatsoever. I would accept that persons decision.
Click to expand...

It should be pointed out the pilot was able to view the video posted above while assessing the advisability of flying the aircraft. It clearly showed the propeller stopped parallel to the wing.

That fact, along with a careful inspection of the propeller, must have verified it did not impact the river bottom. That knowledge made flying the aircraft out much less risky than one might suppose.

Decisions such as this one must be made when bush flying. Pilots in Alaska oftentimes don't have the luxury of consulting a mechanic.

The incident illustrates the fact adherence to checklists and procedures are paramount to safe operations.
 
3393RP said:
The incident illustrates the fact adherence to checklists and procedures are paramount to safe operations.
Click to expand...

There's that. Also the fact that if he'd been anywhere other than right on the water, he'd have probably had time to switch tanks and wouldn't have had the crash. When you flying right up to the edge, a problem that would be solvable under normal situations becomes a big deal.
 
3393RP said:
That fact, along with a careful inspection of the propeller, must have verified it did not impact the river bottom. That knowledge made flying the aircraft out much less risky than one might suppose.
Click to expand...

We do know the spinner impacted the bottom hard enough to damage it. Leaving at least the possibility of unusual forces transmitted to the crankshaft and bearings.

But probably not. It was certainly a plus the prop was stopped, and an even bigger plus it stopped horizontally!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top