Plane crashes off Boca Raton

... airplanes that get dunked in salt water are pretty much always gonna be totaled... And I always wonder when someone does this in the vicinity of an airport whether they know that and just want the insurance check.

Yeah, my first thought exactly. Wonder what the hull insurance value was? Engines and propellers near run out? Did it need paint and an interior?

Many of us owning older aircraft with expensive suite of modern avionics have a very high percentage of the plane's value consisting of modern electronics and autopilots... any of which are total trash after submersion in salt water.

A short wade or swim to the beach following ditching into smooth salt water is an assured way of collecting an insurance check! Not implying that's what happened, just speculating that the end result will be very favorable if her insurance is adequate and all paid up.
 
Yeah, my first thought exactly. Wonder what the hull insurance value was? Engines and propellers near run out? Did it need paint and an interior?

Many of us owning older aircraft with expensive suite of modern avionics have a very high percentage of the plane's value consisting of modern electronics and autopilots... any of which are total trash after submersion in salt water.

A short wade or swim to the beach following ditching into smooth salt water is an assured way of collecting an insurance check! Not implying that's what happened, just speculating that the end result will be very favorable if her insurance is adequate and all paid up.
If one is thinking "expensive suite of modern avionics" doesn't it make more sense to go gear up airport and save the avionics?
 
If one is thinking "expensive suite of modern avionics" doesn't it make more sense to go gear up airport and save the avionics?

Not if you're then facing a repair of the engines, props, end up waiting 6 months to a year to get your plane back in the air and still spend your own money (or not) on fixing up bad paint and interior, with a damage history. Getting a check and going shopping makes sense to me...
 
...in the EA-6B you could get in a situation if you needed to blow the gear down using the emergency extension and had a no flap/slat configuration you couldn't get to gear speed without stalling. To resolve it we would fly a ballistic arc and push to zero AoA and blow the gear well below stall speed then coast down and get back above stall. Might be fun to try in a multi-engine piston with an engine out.
It might be fun, but if I remember my Twin Comanche correctly it won't work. It has bungee cords pulling the gear upwards all the time, more so at the bottom of the main gear's travel. If you push-over, the bungee action works against the pilot's manual exertion on the emergency gear lever. You'd need to go the other way — dive and pull back while pushing the lever down. IIRC. But that might be fun too.
 
Not if you're then facing a repair of the engines, props, end up waiting 6 months to a year to get your plane back in the air and still spend your own money (or not) on fixing up bad paint and interior, with a damage history. Getting a check and going shopping makes sense to me...

Plane had a Robertson STOL kit on it. Try finding another one of those if it was important to you.
 
It might be fun, but if I remember my Twin Comanche correctly it won't work. It has bungee cords pulling the gear upwards all the time, more so at the bottom of the main gear's travel. If you push-over, the bungee action works against the pilot's manual exertion on the emergency gear lever. You'd need to go the other way — dive and pull back while pushing the lever down. IIRC. But that might be fun too.
... but what if ...

1787833892965.png
 
It might be fun, but if I remember my Twin Comanche correctly it won't work. It has bungee cords pulling the gear upwards all the time, more so at the bottom of the main gear's travel. If you push-over, the bungee action works against the pilot's manual exertion on the emergency gear lever. You'd need to go the other way — dive and pull back while pushing the lever down. IIRC. But that might be fun too.
I think the push over was to reduce Gs and avoid stalling.
 
An SIC type rating says almost nothing about training, and we have no evidence of pressurization or landing gear malfunction training.
I thought landing gear malfunction training was required, or maybe just expected, of anyone who was going to fly a retractable gear airplane?
(I say this as someone with a retract whose gear failed to drop shortly after buying the plane -- and after some troubleshooting, boy was I glad to know the emergency extend procedure to get it to drop!)
 
I thought landing gear malfunction training was required, or maybe just expected, of anyone who was going to fly a retractable gear airplane?
(I say this as someone with a retract whose gear failed to drop shortly after buying the plane -- and after some troubleshooting, boy was I glad to know the emergency extend procedure to get it to drop!)
I would say that it’s only expected by pilots who think it’s important, and would require time in the AFM/POH, which a lot of pilots and instructors are resistant to.

As far as the training that’s required, do a search here on topics like moving the blue knob or moving the gear switch and you’ll find plenty of people who think it’s a waste of time and money.
 
I thought landing gear malfunction training was required, or maybe just expected, of anyone who was going to fly a retractable gear airplane?
(I say this as someone with a retract whose gear failed to drop shortly after buying the plane -- and after some troubleshooting, boy was I glad to know the emergency extend procedure to get it to drop!)
What you posted was “SINGLE PILOT TRAINING CURRICULUM” not second in command, totally different.
 
Correct, but it still won't work in the plane that ditched.
Are you saying it's impossible to extend the gear at <1G? Going the other way would decrease stall speed and thus be counterproductive. Of course neither is necessary in a plane where gear extension asked is above stall speed, as it is for the plane in question.
 
Are you saying it's impossible to extend the gear at <1G?
No, I'm saying it would be easier to manually extend the gear under a higher "G" load. Going over the top of an outside loop, so to speak, would tend to pull the gear up at the very time you want to push it down and go over center. The strategy wouldn't "work" to help the pilot. If the pilot is strong enough, though, it might work anyway.
Going the other way would decrease stall speed and thus be counterproductive. Of course neither is necessary in a plane where gear extension asked is above stall speed, as it is for the plane in question.
I'm not even thinking about aerodynamics here. The only observation I'm trying to make is the inappropriateness of ascribing the ballistic arc fix to the Twin Comanche. I do hope I'm even remembering it right. All my POH and AFM materials are long gone. If a GA mechanic or PA-30 owner can correct me, please feel free.
 
No, I'm saying it would be easier to manually extend the gear under a higher "G" load. Going over the top of an outside loop, so to speak, would tend to pull the gear up at the very time you want to push it down and go over center. The strategy wouldn't "work" to help the pilot. If the pilot is strong enough, though, it might work anyway.

I'm not even thinking about aerodynamics here. The only observation I'm trying to make is the inappropriateness of ascribing the ballistic arc fix to the Twin Comanche. I do hope I'm even remembering it right. All my POH and AFM materials are long gone. If a GA mechanic or PA-30 owner can correct me, please feel free.
You missed the point of Pugs' comment and the method he described. It wasn't to make it easier for the pilot.
 
You missed the point of Pugs' comment and the method he described. It wasn't to make it easier for the pilot.
:rolleyes: Whatever. I didn't "miss it", I didn't care about it. My focus was on the mechanics of it not helping a PA-30 in case anybody thought to try it.
 
We need to clear up a misunderstanding here. The document you posted is for a PIC type rating. The person in question has an SIC type.
Yeah the doc says PIC. You're splitting hairs here - SIC is taught from the same syllabus. Here is part of the training outline she would have had. I know pressurization played no role. Point is she was well trained.

CE-560XL GROUND INSTRUCTION

Lesson #11 – Environmental Systems (1 hour)

A. B. Objective: The student will become familiar with the environmental systems and their operation.

Content: 1) Air conditioning – heating; cooling; ventilation. 3) Pressurization – components; controls; indicators; regulating devices; system operation; emergency pressurization. 3) AFM and Operations Manual normal operating procedures and limitations.

C. Completion Standards: The student must be able to demonstrate understanding of the environmental and pneumatic systems.

Lesson #12 – Ice and Rain Protection (0.5 hour)

A. Objective: The pilot will become familiar with and be able to operate the airplane's ice protection systems.

B. Content: 1) Ice detection. 2) Anti-ice and deice systems – pitot-static, wing and stabilizer leading edge,engine, and windshield. 3) AFM and Operations Manual normal operating procedures and limitations.

C. Completion Standards: The pilot will be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the airplane's ice protection systems and their limitations.
 
SIC type rating training varies widely. Sure, you can go to a Part 142 school and get all of the same training a PIC would get. You can also get three take off and landings and have a CFI pencil whip some systems training and head down to the FSDO with an 8710.
 
SIC type rating training varies widely. Sure, you can go to a Part 142 school and get all of the same training a PIC would get.
But you still don’t have to fly to the same standard, or even demonstrate proficiency…a grade of “trained” is an option for many maneuvers.
 
She's a commercial multi engine pilot. Is that not sufficient for the plane she was flying?
Depends on training and proficiency.

But in context, my statement was made because the SIC type rating is being held up by some as proof of a specific level of training, which it isn’t.
 
Depends on training and proficiency.

But in context, my statement was made because the SIC type rating is being held up by some as proof of a specific level of training, which it isn’t.
It's not proof of anything, but her ratings suggest that it's reasonable for us to expect a certain level of competency beyond a fresh MEL private pilot. Whether she actually had that competency is a different question.
 
It's not proof of anything, but her ratings suggest that it's reasonable for us to expect a certain level of competency beyond a fresh MEL private pilot. Whether she actually had that competency is a different question.
I would agree that they should, but I’ve seen enough people with ratings to know that they don’t.
 
Interesting to find out if she was really qualified like Jenny Blalock. Daddy pretty much bought her license
 
Very strange scenario. Engine failure? Gear fails to extend? Electrical problems persisting before, during, after, something like that?

That's too many independent systems for a simple explanation.

A few thoughts, as I've owned one for 26 years now...

The TwinCo is a bit of an odd bird - it was certified for one or two generators so it's possible to find a few out there with one gen, as one little side note. Many have been coverted to alternators.

The other interesting thing I've noticed about PA-30s and their owners over the years is that numerous times, with me in the aircraft providing instruction, one of the two generators will be determined to be inop before takeoff - so back to the ramp we go, but they've not been aware for some time. There's no specific procedure in the AFM to independently check the generators on runup, something I do of course. And I keep spare generators as they fail fairly often. Owners who install some sort of indicating system (low voltage light for each gen, for example) are on the ball.

The TwinCo's landing gear is all electrical. There are strengths and weaknesses in that approach - it's very difficult to get gear down out of alignment (i.e. one main and not the other, etc.) but also, it requires an "involved" manual gear extension procedure, if needed, that has certainly been bungled any number of times, sometimes spectacularly. Also, Piper relies on bungees which are reasonably reliable provided they are routinely replaced, but it's certainly a budget solution, not exactly something to cheer about. (I don't go more than two years between bungees.)

One other note, it's inadvisable to depart with a weak battery in the TwinCo as landing gear retraction/extension requires a healthy one.

Would it be a handful to lower the gear manually while hand-flying the PA-30 1EO? I suppose it could be, though I would think that's a skill you'd want to have if flying such an aircraft.

Don't have too many thoughts on this incident so far, other than to be curious as to the odd combination of circumstances.
 
The other interesting thing I've noticed about PA-30s and their owners over the years is that numerous times, with me in the aircraft providing instruction, one of the two generators will be determined to be inop before takeoff - so back to the ramp we go, but they've not been aware for some time. There's no specific procedure in the AFM to independently check the generators on runup, something I do of course. And I keep spare generators as they fail fairly often. Owners who install some sort of indicating system (low voltage light for each gen, for example) are on the ball.

The TwinCo's landing gear is all electrical. There are strengths and weaknesses in that approach - it's very difficult to get gear down out of alignment (i.e. one main and not the other, etc.) but also, it requires an "involved" manual gear extension procedure, if needed, that has certainly been bungled any number of times, sometimes spectacularly. Also, Piper relies on bungees which are reasonably reliable provided they are routinely replaced, but it's certainly a budget solution, not exactly something to cheer about. (I don't go more than two years between bungees.)

One other note, it's inadvisable to depart with a weak battery in the TwinCo as landing gear retraction/extension requires a healthy one.
So, it's certainly well within the realm of possibility that the unreliable generator on one engine failed, owners/pilots were unaware of it because they were only following the procedures in the book, and she took off with one generator inop and then the other engine failed, and the battery voltage was insufficient to extend the gear normally, especially after she flew around for a while figuring things out with a dead generator?
 
So, it's certainly well within the realm of possibility that the unreliable generator on one engine failed, owners/pilots were unaware of it because they were only following the procedures in the book, and she took off with one generator inop and then the other engine failed, and the battery voltage was insufficient to extend the gear normally, especially after she flew around for a while figuring things out with a dead generator?
Over on BT they’re saying it had some SureFly ignition mods that require power (unlike mags), but that they should also have adequate backup batteries. But… :dunno:
 
The TwinCo's landing gear is all electrical. There are strengths and weaknesses in that approach - it's very difficult to get gear down out of alignment (i.e. one main and not the other, etc.) but also, it requires an "involved" manual gear extension procedure, if needed, that has certainly been bungled any number of times, sometimes spectacularly.

I will agree with much of your original statement except for this. I have flown every type of Comanche except the 400, including the Twin. I have done emergency extensions during annuals, and even one actual in flight. The procedure is possible one of the easiest I've seen. Remove the floor cover, read the directions. Move the gear switch to the center position, slow below 100 mph, pull the transmission release, then use the "Johnson" bar to push the gear over center. Beats having to reach behind you and turn a crank 60 revolutions like a Beechcraft, or trying to pump up hydraulic pressure like a Cessna.

Even if that didn't work, which she clearly didnt try as the gear were still locked in the up position, choosing a water ditching versus a safe gear up landing on a paved runway with fire standing by makes no logical sense. I've never understood the apprehension some pilots have over intentional gear up landings. I've heard pilots say a prayer, say their goodbyes to loved ones. A gear up landing shouldnt have any risk to the pilot unless they completely bungle it, or twist an ankle because they forgot they aren't a foot higher getting out of the plane. Most don't even result in a fire or anything more than a bent prop and some sheetmetal damage. My one "emergency" landing when we didnt have three green was no sweat. I was fully ready for it, and ready to make the call to the insurance company if the gear didn't hold. Never in my life would I have considered landing somewhere else.
 
Sure, on the face of it, it makes no sense not to attempt a manual gear extension. Not certain if it’s clear that it was attempted or not. A water landing vs. on pavement is also a curious decision. I wouldn’t have made that choice, but the facts still seem a little murky. Hopefully we will learn more about it.

But if we zero in just on the equipment… regrettably, the PA30’s manual extension procedure is definitely more complex than most of its contemporaries. I’ve probably got a similar amount of time in the Seminole and Seneca from my instructing/pilot examiner time (the latter unloggable of course, but still quite a bit of time spent actually flying the airplane and almost always involving OEI, simulated emergencies, etc.) In those aircraft the pilot simply observes an airspeed limitation, places the landing gear selector in the down position, and pulls the emergency extension plunger located on the panel near the gear lever.

Could one subjectively state that the procedure in the PA30 is also simple? Perhaps so. On the face of it, as a person who has flown it for over half of my lifetime, it seems simple to me. But spending a complete adult lifetime in this industry has taught me that a self-centric view doesn’t often pan out to a systemic one.

Instead of the procedure described above, for starters, most of the work to get TwinCo’s gear down manually happens down and between the pilot and front passenger seats. That means leaning down and messing with stuff in the belly of the ship. After slowing down and placing the gear handle in the down position, the cover must be removed, the transmission handle must be pulled to disengage it from the system, and most likely the extension lever will need to be removed from the bracket - all the way in the belly of the aircraft, a deep lean while hand flying. Now the handle will need to be inserted into one, initially, of the two exposed sockets and thrust forward, and if that doesn’t get the gear down and locked, removed, re-inserted in the other socket, and pushed forward until the green light indicates.

Yes; seems reasonably simple to me. I’ve owned it, thought through this procedure many times over many years, assisted with annuals, worked on the gear a bit.

A young pilot with, presumably, a few hundred hours to her name? Or even double that? Probably a different story. The stress lens changes what the brain perceives and how it thinks. Simple tasks become difficult. Pilots red screen the sim too. Shut down the wrong engines. Including in the real airplane. The PA30’s manual gear extension procedure is indeed involved and not to be disregarded in the total context of this story.
 
When would I ever chose to go out of my way to land in a body of water when an airport with tower and emergency services were more readily available? ? ? I don’t know the circumstances but trying to come up with a scenario.
 
Plus she flew right to a location full of buildings and tourists on the beach and in the water. Then she patted herself on the back for saving lives by avoiding them. I think she never had any emergency gear extension training and had no clue how to do it. The avoidance of landing at an airport is not as cool as splashing it in in front of tourist's cameras. I think she aas being dramatic.

People are actually stating that she should be a test pilot at Edwards AFB.
 
Sure, on the face of it, it makes no sense not to attempt a manual gear extension. Not certain if it’s clear that it was attempted or not. A water landing vs. on pavement is also a curious decision. I wouldn’t have made that choice, but the facts still seem a little murky. Hopefully we will learn more about it.

But if we zero in just on the equipment… regrettably, the PA30’s manual extension procedure is definitely more complex than most of its contemporaries. I’ve probably got a similar amount of time in the Seminole and Seneca from my instructing/pilot examiner time (the latter unloggable of course, but still quite a bit of time spent actually flying the airplane and almost always involving OEI, simulated emergencies, etc.) In those aircraft the pilot simply observes an airspeed limitation, places the landing gear selector in the down position, and pulls the emergency extension plunger located on the panel near the gear lever.

Could one subjectively state that the procedure in the PA30 is also simple? Perhaps so. On the face of it, as a person who has flown it for over half of my lifetime, it seems simple to me. But spending a complete adult lifetime in this industry has taught me that a self-centric view doesn’t often pan out to a systemic one.

Instead of the procedure described above, for starters, most of the work to get TwinCo’s gear down manually happens down and between the pilot and front passenger seats. That means leaning down and messing with stuff in the belly of the ship. After slowing down and placing the gear handle in the down position, the cover must be removed, the transmission handle must be pulled to disengage it from the system, and most likely the extension lever will need to be removed from the bracket - all the way in the belly of the aircraft, a deep lean while hand flying. Now the handle will need to be inserted into one, initially, of the two exposed sockets and thrust forward, and if that doesn’t get the gear down and locked, removed, re-inserted in the other socket, and pushed forward until the green light indicates.

Yes; seems reasonably simple to me. I’ve owned it, thought through this procedure many times over many years, assisted with annuals, worked on the gear a bit.

A young pilot with, presumably, a few hundred hours to her name? Or even double that? Probably a different story. The stress lens changes what the brain perceives and how it thinks. Simple tasks become difficult. Pilots red screen the sim too. Shut down the wrong engines. Including in the real airplane. The PA30’s manual gear extension procedure is indeed involved and not to be disregarded in the total context of this story.
So you’re either competent flying that model aircraft or you’re not? Obviously not in this case.

Obviously not knowing her hours in make and model it’s hard to know.
 
Back
Top