337 Makes gear up landing in the water

Nicely done own the landing though.
 
Maciej said:
:lol: That was my first thought as well.
Click to expand...

It is a 337... :rofl:

Just trying to stir the pot. It was a nice landing. But weighing the risks of a gear up on a paved runway, vs. ditching and a water evacuation... it wasn't really the right call.

Maybe there is more to the story.
 
Last edited:
I couldn't tell whether the front engine was running. If not, then your idea is all the more plausible, depending on weight and how much the pilot could squeeze out of the rear engine.

Maciej said:
Possibly didn't have enough energy to safely get above the runway.
Click to expand...
 
RotorDude said:
Edit: I am wondering if the pilot (poss. owner?) felt that since the lagoon was fresh water, he could have the plane pulled out quickly and end up with less damage? Would be a first for me if so.
Click to expand...
Unlikely.
 
Landing on water is softer? go for a swim ? lots of reasons , plane needed a bath, maybe he wanted to scuba later and see his plane under water ..
 
He didn't happen to have this plane for sale for months and months did he?? What a dumb thing to do.
 
marcoseddi said:
Landing on water is softer?
Click to expand...
I don't think it is necessarily softer. Even the best water landing would result in skin damage and prop strike which is what you'd be dealing with on a belly landing on pavement. BUT, a water landing is going to fill the aircraft with water which will damage a lot more regardless of fresh vs salt water and the airplane is more likely to be damaged while pulling it out of the water.

The only reason I can think to elect to ditch in the lagoon vs the runway is that he didn't want to shut down the runway at HNL.
 
Article says that he circled for hours. Could've easily gone to a smaller airport if he didn't want to shut down HNL.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I don't think it is necessarily softer. Even the best water landing would result in skin damage and prop strike which is what you'd be dealing with on a belly landing on pavement. BUT, a water landing is going to fill the aircraft with water which will damage a lot more regardless of fresh vs salt water and the airplane is more likely to be damaged while pulling it out of the water.

The only reason I can think to elect to ditch in the lagoon vs the runway is that he didn't want to shut down the runway at HNL.
Click to expand...

That's what taxiways are for, or the grass between taxiway and runway. He had working engines and plenty gas. He could have flown it to a smaller airport. I can think of no good reason to put it in the water and risk your own life other than insurance money.

The "CFI of 2011" ought to know that gear up landings on pavement almost always end up with the pilot walking away un scratched and the plane likely repairable. He would also know that a plane landed in the water often times kills the pilot when things go wrong and that plane is always totaled.
 
Dav8or said:
That's what taxiways are for, or the grass between taxiway and runway. He had working engines and plenty gas. He could have flown it to a smaller airport. I can think of no good reason to put it in the water and risk your own life other than insurance money.
Click to expand...
I am not saying I agree with putting it down on the water vs the runway, but that is the only reason I can think to elect that.

Trying to put it down on a t-way or grass in between t-ways and runway are not better options. Keep in mind that the taxiway for 4R/22L is the ramp - not a good spot to land gear up.

Going to another airport might be. Although, FWIW, his office and car were a few hundred feet from where he put it down....and cross island traffic on Oahu SUCKS.
 
Last edited:
Post water landing checklist.
  • Fuel off.
  • Master off.
  • Gear lever down.
 
Over on Facebook ,they have a statement from the pilot ,that he would rather drown than fry to death. Looked like power was on during the approach,may have picked the grass next to the runway.
 
Grass would have been the worst of the options probably. Really easy for some piece of the plane to dig into the ground and come to a high-G stop hurting the pilot. Water, in a retractable gear plane, is far less likely to do that.

The best option by far, as many others have pointed out, is the runway. Belly it in, dissipate energy skidding to a stop over 200-700 ft, and go grab a burger.
 
And landing at the airport where there's fire/rescue would have given him much better odds of living than if he would have screwed up that landing in the water.
 
Sounds like he may have a phobia of fire, and thinks it's less likely in a water landing.
 
I still don't buy it. I've seen them clear gear ups with the minimal of effort. If the guy was such a great pilot he could have put it on the pavement with probably the loss of nothing more than some paint and a few antennas. The 22L/R runways are pretty much for the small guys anyhow.

As for taxiways and grass, I'm going for the runway. You're less likely to ball it up on a nice smooth surface, hard as it is, than scraping along something soft.
 
His choice seems like a dingbat move to me. Ron's idea is a much safer choice IMHO.


My aerospace physiology brother told me that landing in trees is statistically safer than ditching in water, (cold water of the Puget Sound below us at the time)
 
So what's a 337 worth? $10?
 
So, we had an underwater Mooney......wonder how long till we see the underwater Skymaster???

Hey Brah, you wanna buy a cheap Skymaster?
 
flyingron said:
I still don't buy it. I've seen them clear gear ups with the minimal of effort. If the guy was such a great pilot he could have put it on the pavement with probably the loss of nothing more than some paint and a few antennas. The 22L/R runways are pretty much for the small guys anyhow.

As for taxiways and grass, I'm going for the runway. You're less likely to ball it up on a nice smooth surface, hard as it is, than scraping along something soft.
Click to expand...

Anyone wonder if there was any communication between the pilot and the owner in the time between the discovery of the gear malfunction and the water landing?
 
fiveoboy01 said:
Anyone wonder if there was any communication between the pilot and the owner in the time between the discovery of the gear malfunction and the water landing?
Click to expand...

As in two hours flying around within cell phone range? Nah.
 
frfly172 said:
Over on Facebook ,they have a statement from the pilot ,that he would rather drown than fry to death. Looked like power was on during the approach,may have picked the grass next to the runway.
Click to expand...
I guess that's a reasonably choice of death mechanism. But I think I'd take a 2% chance of dying in fire over a 75% chance of drowning. In hindsight, he's OK. But landing at the airport would have made the odds more in his favor. And burning up seems less likely when ARFF has two hours notice of your arrival. I'd like to hear the ATC tapes: "Cleared any airport any runway." "I'm going to land in the lake." :no:
 
The plane needed a wash.
He likes the water
He needed a bath
He doesn't like fire "Who Does"
He wanted to total the $15 airplane to collect on a $500k insurance policy
He wanted to make a big splash instead of sparks and smoke
He wanted to see the close by nude beach

Any other possible reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top