Emergency landing on Ocean City, NJ beach

Ho got it down and walked away.

I noticed the elevators, I would have kept them pulled back to lift the nose and maybe slow down a little faster (saying this from the comfort of a chair :rolleyes: ). Still may not have helped much once he got to slow for the elevators to help keep the nose up.

I suppose this is why taildraggers are preferred for off-airport operations.

Zeldman said:
Stay away from the soft, wet sand.
Click to expand...
I used to live out that way. The dry sand is the soft stuff, until you got very close to the water. For all I know, he ran into some kid's sand castle moat. I'm quite surprised the beach was so empty!
 
Cap'n Jack said:
I noticed the elevators
Click to expand...

I was watching the elevators and the rudder as well to see if there was the possibility the pilot tried to turn, dug in the nose wheel and away we go. All my off airport experience was in a C-206 and in Alaska. Except the one time I landed a Chieftain on a frozen river. The sand I landed on was pretty heavy. All turns had to be carefully done. And yes, I stuck the nose wheel more than once.....

The few tail draggers I saw doing off airport work had floats.


Cap'n Jack said:
For all I know, he ran into some kid's sand castle moat.
Click to expand...

Very well could have. Or any sharp dip in the sand could have caused the nose wheel to dig in while braking.

Up until it nosed over the landing looked good. Most important part was no injuries.
 
Good job,no injuries,plane doesn’t look bad either.
 
I vacation here yearly. I fill in the kids moats daily lol. Now I guess I’ll pack harder. I think he did fine. Seemed a bit fast but it’s not like you can stand on the brakes. I think most emergency landings ppl land fast inherently.
 
Must read the comments. Terrific if read with a jersey accent.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
The dry sand is the soft stuff, until you got very close to the water.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I probably would have tried to take the plane closer to the water where's its more compact.

IK04 said:
Just a standard, too-fast landing. Nothing to see here...
Click to expand...
Cap'n Jack said:
I noticed the elevators, I would have kept them pulled back to lift the nose and maybe slow down a little faster
Click to expand...

Considering the plane was already on the ground and not in the flare, I agree the landing did indeed look fast but it also looked quite manageable. From the looks of things the pilot started to get on the brakes rather than just allowing the speed to bleed off and taking as much distance as he needed to come to a stop.

You can clearly see the plane pitch slightly forward at 8, 10 and 11 seconds on what appears to be rather flat ground before toppling over at 12 seconds. There was no corresponding "bump" when the mains went over the same general area which would be consistent with a hole and the plane's attitude seemed to recover to the previous attitude a moment later in each case which is more consistent with someone pumping the brakes. That doesn't mean there weren't holes or other soft spots in those areas but he probably went hard on the brakes which shifted the load forward to the nose wheel and caused it to dig in. Additional back elevator would have probably helped dampen this CG shift but staying off the brakes probably would have avoided the cartwheel altogether.

I would have probably killed the engine at some point too. At bare minimum it would have saved him a tear down.
 
Last edited:
Will be interesting to hear the story on this one. Article says 49th st so he had an airport at his 4 o-clock. Power loss after take off maybe? Although the prop is still turning. Carb ice? Looks like ACY was report winds 340 @ 4 around that time so whatever wind he had was probably tailwind. Could explain some of the speed.
 
apr911 said:
Agreed, I probably would have tried to take the plane closer to the water where's its more compact.




Considering the plane was already on the ground and not in the flare, I agree the landing did indeed look fast but it also looked quite manageable. From the looks of things the pilot started to get on the brakes rather than just allowing the speed to bleed off and taking as much distance as he needed to come to a stop.

You can clearly see the plane pitch slightly forward at 8, 10 and 11 seconds on what appears to be rather flat ground and without a corresponding bump when the mains went over the same general area before toppling over at 12 seconds. That doesn't mean there weren't holes or other soft spots in those areas but he probably went hard on the brakes which shifted the load forward to the nose wheel and caused it to dig in. Additional back elevator would have probably helped dampen this CG shift but staying off the brakes probably would have avoided the cartwheel altogether.

I would have probably killed the engine at some point too. At bare minimum it would have saved him a tear down.
Click to expand...
Possible on the brakes. I was thinking about the elevators in the context of a soft-field landing. Good thought on the engine, though.
 
Touch and go at Sullivan's Island near Charleston SC caught by drone.

 
Cap'n Jack said:
Possible on the brakes. I was thinking about the elevators in the context of a soft-field landing. Good thought on the engine, though.
Click to expand...

Yes agreed that elevators being held back is proper soft-field landing procedure but what appears to be the use of brakes was the bigger error in the procedure in my opinion. The plane was doing fine on the sand at least initially, which tells me the neutral elevator pressures were enough to keep the plane from digging in and probably would have continued to be that way until much slower. While additional back pressure may have kept the nose from digging in longer, as you noted the back pressure does lose effectiveness at lower speeds.

Either way, it appears the cartwheel was caused by a failure to apply proper soft-field landing procedures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top