StuBob wrote:That’s a great solution. Could it be an AMOC?

What’s the purpose of limiting the airplane to 5 seats?

I agree that looks promising. It is non structural (I think) so it MAY be a bit easier to get approved. I’d be all for it.

The reason for limiting to five persons is to have fewer passengers in that rear row of seats. I suppose the theory is it’s easier to get one person out of the back than two.

I really don’t think that cargo door can be used as a “functional” emergency exit, especially on float equipped aircraft in its stock configuration.

I’m also a big fan of the Wipaire STC’d co-Pilot side front door, when on floats.

MTV

mtv wrote:

StuBob wrote:That’s a great solution. Could it be an AMOC?

What’s the purpose of limiting the airplane to 5 seats?

I agree that looks promising. It is non structural (I think) so it MAY be a bit easier to get approved. I’d be all for it.

The reason for limiting to five persons is to have fewer passengers in that rear row of seats. I suppose the theory is it’s easier to get one person out of the back than two.

I really don’t think that cargo door can be used as a “functional” emergency exit, especially on float equipped aircraft in its stock configuration.

I’m also a big fan of the Wipaire STC’d co-Pilot side front door, when on floats.

MTV

The reason the limit to 5 passengers does make egress easier. This is because one of the center row seats is out. It doesn't limit the rear row, only the center, which makes it easier for the rear seat occupants to egress through the pilots door...

-0-

I agree dogpilot. Try getting the rear row of a C185 once flipped over. I'm sure it's not easy even though you can open the baggage door from the outside.

Yes, the Wipaire co Pilot door is expensive, and it’s not a good egress point for back seaters. That said, it offers one more exit point, and the co pilot egressing through that door reduces the crowd that’s trying to get out the pilots door. And, that helps, no doubt.

MTV

I hope I never have a bad day like those pilots whose crashes triggered this AD, but in defense of those who have ended up inverted in a floatplane, I think it is easier than some of us would like to think.

Take a look at this scene from the movie, “Motherlode,” where the Beaver went over incredibly quickly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgHmTanno0E

Granted there are a few things wrong with this landing, but the main cause was the pilot landed too flat, where the center of pressure, or point of rotation, was in front of the CG, so the aircraft had negative stability, like in a taildragger. There is an excellent description in Burke Mees’ book, Notes of a Seaplane Instructor, about yaw stability on the step. Pitching up, like we do naturally upon touching down on the water, moves the center of pressure behind the CG and the aircraft becomes positively stable. The Beaver in this movie scene, for which the crash was unplanned, landed too flat, was negatively stable, yawed left, dragged a wingtip and went over quite quickly.

I think the same thing might have happened in the Homer 206 crash that Headoutdaplane recounted, although the NTSB simply blamed it on landing with a rather strong quartering tailwind. The pilot was quite experienced, even on floats, but I believe he relied on the ATIS for an airport adjacent to the lake and the wind directions were very different. That is one of the many reasons that I always circle a lake before setting up to land. But as Burke explains in his book, downwind landings tend to pitch the plane forward and into the region of negative stability.

As Headoutdaplane also noted, lots of good pilots have ended up inverted. I brought up the issue of yaw stability on the step because I believe it is not commonly understood and it is a very easy way to “water loop” a floatplane and end up inverted, along with lots of other ways.

Also, getting out of an inverted, flooded airplane is not as easy as one might think. I went through the dunk tank training several years ago and it was a real eye opener. Highly recommended training. Of course, not being able to get the door open makes egress all that much more difficult.

Ross

pipeliner wrote:I hope I never have a bad day like those pilots whose crashes triggered this AD, but in defense of those who have ended up inverted in a floatplane, I think it is easier than some of us would like to think.

Take a look at this scene from the movie, “Motherlode,” where the Beaver went over incredibly quickly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgHmTanno0E

Granted there are a few things wrong with this landing, but the main cause was the pilot landed too flat, where the center of pressure, or point of rotation, was in front of the CG, so the aircraft had negative stability, like in a taildragger. There is an excellent description in Burke Mees’ book, Notes of a Seaplane Instructor, about yaw stability on the step. Pitching up, like we do naturally upon touching down on the water, moves the center of pressure behind the CG and the aircraft becomes positively stable. The Beaver in this movie scene, for which the crash was unplanned, landed too flat, was negatively stable, yawed left, dragged a wingtip and went over quite quickly.

I think the same thing might have happened in the Homer 206 crash that Headoutdaplane recounted, although the NTSB simply blamed it on landing with a rather strong quartering tailwind. The pilot was quite experienced, even on floats, but I believe he relied on the ATIS for an airport adjacent to the lake and the wind directions were very different. That is one of the many reasons that I always circle a lake before setting up to land. But as Burke explains in his book, downwind landings tend to pitch the plane forward and into the region of negative stability.

As Headoutdaplane also noted, lots of good pilots have ended up inverted. I brought up the issue of yaw stability on the step because I believe it is not commonly understood and it is a very easy way to “water loop” a floatplane and end up inverted, along with lots of other ways.

Also, getting out of an inverted, flooded airplane is not as easy as one might think. I went through the dunk tank training several years ago and it was a real eye opener. Highly recommended training. Of course, not being able to get the door open makes egress all that much more difficult.

Ross

Ross,
A couple of points. The pilot of that Beaver in the movie Mother Lode was a movie industry pilot (he was a union member in other words) with very little, if any, seaplane experience. That was a confined area landing, surrounded by very steep terrain, and glassy water. The result was predictable.

Your comments on the forces that precipitated that accident are accurate. But, in my experience, that sort of accident is pretty rare. I worked seaplanes out of Fairbanks for twenty years and eight years in Kodiak before that and I never saw or heard of a similar accident.

Yes, a tailwind on landing can be problematic....so don't accept one. One thing about flying seaplanes is that you learn to read the wind, wherever you are, because there are lots of wind indicators out there. ATIS is singularly unreliable as a wind indicator, simply because that information can be up to an hour old, and we all know that wind can and does change much more frequently than that.

But, again, at least in my experience, getting upside down in a seaplane seems to be much more frequently caused by the pilot leaving the landing gear down for a water landing than a "water loop".

In any case, landing that "flat" is just plain lousy piloting.

MTV