One Dead, One Critical after Oshkosh Seaplane Base Crash

Seems every year doesn't it. I was remarking to my wife the other day about no accidents reported this year, so it's going to be a great year at Oshkosh. Sad. RIP.
 
Killed 2 in MO. Found them in a soybean field coming out of Arkansas in a Zenair 710. Had crashed very early that morning after leaving Mexico, MO. Husband and wife enroute to Oshkosh.

There was another crash couple days ago here in MO - lost engine and put it down in a corn field. 2 on board headed to Oshkosh survived but that's gonna be a nice check to the farmer to get it out of there. Corn is about 6 ft tall!
 
Kathryns report has numerous photos of this incident.
 
I've never flown a Lake but know guys that do. They say one of the primary difference from my planes is that if I add full throttle the nose goes up. In a Lake when you add throttle the nose is pushed down. That trim tab would make sense. In any case it wouldn't overpower the elevator, would it?
 
Stewartb said:
I've never flown a Lake but know guys that do. They say one of the primary difference from my planes is that if I add full throttle the nose goes up. In a Lake when you add throttle the nose is pushed down. That trim tab would make sense. In any case it wouldn't overpower the elevator, would it?
Click to expand...
Of course not. How would you ever take off or full power climb?
 
Normally, trim tabs are mounted in trail of the main control surface, so they only affect elevator hinge moment. In that case the setting seen in the picture would be the opposite of what you wanted on takeoff, since that would drive elevator down, which is nose down.

Turns out thats not a typical trim tab ypu see on that aircraft. That thing is hinged in line with the elevator, so it actually acts like a second elevator. In thay case, the surface is correctly positioned. It is also mounted asymmetrically to kill the equally large engine rolling torque effect of such high eccentricity, overhung mounted engine.
 
Stewartb said:
I've never flown a Lake but know guys that do. They say one of the primary difference from my planes is that if I add full throttle the nose goes up. In a Lake when you add throttle the nose is pushed down. That trim tab would make sense. In any case it wouldn't overpower the elevator, would it?
Click to expand...

I have about 24 hours (12 dual) in an LA-4-200 (Buccaneer, not a Renegade like the plane involved in the crash), so I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, and I'm not going to speculate about the causes of this accident or what the pilot may have done or not done, but I wanted to make a few comments about flying a Lake.

You are correct that with full power there is a strong nose down moment; the engine thrust line is above the CG, so full power produces a nose down moment. Conversely, a reduction in power causes a nose up pitching moment. Really important to be agressive with a strong push when the engine power goes away. When practicing power off landings, a strong push down is required to maintain proper speed. It's also a very draggy plane. Compared to my Bellanca Viking, flying the Buccaneer is like driving a truck vs a sports car, but I can't land on the water in the Viking (at least and take off again).

The Lake doesn't have trim tabs attached to the elevator like on a lot of GA aircraft. It's more correct to think of the Lake's tabs as auxillary elevators which are positioned in a set position by the trim lever. Having the tabs set up like in the photos is typical for water takeoffs.

I did see in the Kathyrn's report that the plane was alleged to have hit a wave on takeoff. That can be a challenge to deal with if the wave throws the plane into the air prior to reaching flying speed. Depending on how high the plane is thrown by the wave and how much airspeed there is, the plane can stall and impact the water in a nose down position. Not at all saying that that is what happened in this particular case.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Kritchlow said:
Of course not. How would you ever take off or full power climb?
Click to expand...

Nope, it's true. Having the engine thrust line above the CG means that there is a nose down pitching moment with full power and a nose up pitching moment when power is reduced. The elevator can, of course, override the pitching moment due to thrust as long as there is enough airflow over the elevator to make it effective.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
jimhorner said:
Nope, it's true. Having the engine thrust line above the CG means that there is a nose down pitching moment with full power and a nose up pitching moment when power is reduced. The elevator can, of course, override the pitching moment due to thrust as long as there is enough airflow over the elevator to make it effective.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Yes, there is a nose down pitch. BUT the poster asked if it can over power elevator control.

Obviously not.
 
Kritchlow said:
Yes, there is a nose down pitch. BUT the poster asked if it can over power elevator control.

Obviously not.
Click to expand...

Ah, you're right. I didn't parse the question properly. I thought you were saying that there wasn't a nose down moment. My bad...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
hindsight2020 said:
It is also mounted asymmetrically to kill the equally large engine rolling torque effect of such high eccentricity, overhung mounted engine.
Click to expand...

Interesting. The Buccaneer I fly has the tabs on both sides of the horizontal stab. It looks like the Renegade only has the tab on the left? Is that a Renegade change, or did some of the Buccaneer have that also? Makes sense to do it that way, I guess. Clever.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Kritchlow said:
Yes, there is a nose down pitch. BUT the poster asked if it can over power elevator control.

Obviously not.
Click to expand...

The poster posed the question to illustrate that trim is trim, and that elevator controls the airplane's pitch.
 
Found this in a pdf that I saved awhile back from I believe the SPA webpage when I was thinking of getting checked out in a Lake.

Many pilots who are unfamiliar with the Lake assume that the high mounted engine will cause the nose to pitch down excessively when power is added. Lake corrected this problem starting with the C-2 Skimmer. Large hydraulically actuated trim tabs were mounted outboard of the elevators. These tabs are deflected up when Lake aircraft are properly trimmed for slow flight. The addition of power will direct increased air flow on these upward deflected tabs and the elevator thus mitigates the expected nose pitch down reaction. Trimming so an aircraft will fly without holding pressure on the controls is considered a normal flying technique. The Lake has no undesirable power influenced pitch response when this is accomplished.
 
Cykoguy said:
Check out the trim tab in the first picture...

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2017/07/lake-la-250-n1400p-accident-occurred.html
Click to expand...

FlyingElvii said:
Good eye. I didn't catch that at all.
Click to expand...

jimhorner said:
I have about 24 hours (12 dual) in an LA-4-200 (Buccaneer, not a Renegade like the plane involved in the crash), so I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, and I'm not going to speculate about the causes of this accident or what the pilot may have done or not done, but I wanted to make a few comments about flying a Lake.
Click to expand...

Later commentary points out that the trim tab position is normal.

But folks are saying the flaps aren't deployed in the photos, and they're required for that takeoff.

Perhaps @jimhorner can confirm?
 
denverpilot said:
Later commentary points out that the trim tab position is normal.

But folks are saying the flaps aren't deployed in the photos, and they're required for that takeoff.

Perhaps @jimhorner can confirm?
Click to expand...

Again, somewhat of a novice in Lakes, and I have no experience in a Renegade. However, the usual procedure for takeoff in a Buccaneer is to have flaps down. Note that in the Buccaneer, flaps are either up or down; there are no other positions. A no-flaps takeoff can be done in a Buccaneer, but it's quite exciting and challenging. One has to achieve a higher airspeed to liftoff, and in choppy water that can be quite difficult. There's the issue of the waves occasionally slowing the plane down and also throwing it into the air prematurely before flying speed is attained. Lots of playing with the pitch to find the sweet spot to keep it on the step so it can accellerate and also to prevent porpoising. Patience is required without the flaps down because the water runs can take quite a bit of time to get to flying speed. No flaps takeoffs are definitely not standard for the Buccaneer. No idea if that statement applies to the Renegade, but I wouldn't be surprised.

I was actually getting current again in the Lake a couple of weeks ago flying with my instructor to get solo privilages again, and he had me working on no-flaps water takeoffs and landings. Lake Oroville O06 was quite choppy that day, and the takeoff runs were quite long. The less said about my no-flaps landings, the better. Ugh.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
SkyDog58 said:
It was reported today that the pilot passed so there are now two fatalities. Sad.
Click to expand...

Very sad. I will be following this to see what the NTSB has to say about the cause.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Not sure if it was clear that reports are now that both front seater's have perished.
 
denverpilot said:
Later commentary points out that the trim tab position is normal.

But folks are saying the flaps aren't deployed in the photos, and they're required for that takeoff.

Perhaps @jimhorner can confirm?
Click to expand...
Several thousand hours in Lakes 180, 200, EP and 250, flaps should be used for takeoff, trim position is normal, angle of attack in the picture is too steep, waves a little brisk ? thrown up prematurely by waves or wake.
 
Stewartb said:
The poster posed the question to illustrate that trim is trim, and that elevator controls the airplane's pitch.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I may hay been the one to misread.
 
I was there right before this accident and photographed them getting into the plane. Here's the full picture. Trim was the same while parked. Honestly, it looks like a zero flap soft field takeoff result. The photos when he attempted to lift off show zero flaps.
7525b6886b3d863e771c8778eee380a6.jpg


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
dottat said:
I was there right before this accident and photographed them getting into the plane. Here's the full picture. Trim was the same while parked. Honestly, it looks like a zero flap soft field takeoff result. The photos when he attempted to lift off show zero flaps.
Click to expand...

I was there shortly after the accident and since I was working for the EAA and had on a bright yellow vest, everyone wanted to talk to me. It's the EAA's and my own personal policy not to take photos of crashes, so you won't see anything from me, but there were a lot of people taking pics. The stories were rough to listen to. Every single person who spoke to me told me they had begged the pilot not to take off. They said he was taking on water and they told him it wasn't safe. He insisted he knew what he was doing. Because they were concerned, they were all watching him leave and it really shook them up. Sad day.
 
Lowflynjack said:
The stories were rough to listen to. Every single person who spoke to me told me they had begged the pilot not to take off. They said he was taking on water and they told him it wasn't safe. He insisted he knew what he was doing. Because they were concerned, they were all watching him leave and it really shook them up. Sad day.
Click to expand...

How terrible that must have been for them to witness, especially after pleading with him like that.

RIP :(
 
Lowflynjack said:
I was there shortly after the accident and since I was working for the EAA and had on a bright yellow vest, everyone wanted to talk to me. It's the EAA's and my own personal policy not to take photos of crashes, so you won't see anything from me, but there were a lot of people taking pics. The stories were rough to listen to. Every single person who spoke to me told me they had begged the pilot not to take off. They said he was taking on water and they told him it wasn't safe. He insisted he knew what he was doing. Because they were concerned, they were all watching him leave and it really shook them up. Sad day.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Very bizarre overall. Having been around all kinds of airplanes and pilots and flying into the event myself it was simply strange. Here one minute and gone the next. I don't know how else to describe it. Oddly, the plane docked to the right of it also came in with a float very low in the water. Canadian tail number here. When they arrived it, the starboard float was so deep you couldn't even see the wheel.

Accident aircraft is in the background. What I also found very odd is that one of the dock guys took the small raft and went around the accident aircraft washing the algae off it before they departed.

Also, the time between departing the dock and attempting take off seemed higher than what you would think. Not sure what all happened between leaving the dock and attempting take off. We walked the trail back to our car and left. Got just down the main drag to the rail crossing and had to wait for a train. Soon as the cross guards lifted the ambulance pulling the boat was there with lights blazing.

Just a very odd Oshkosh experience.
57284c076c7a60c72fd8c7303b535f3a.jpg


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
Lowflynjack said:
I was there shortly after the accident and since I was working for the EAA and had on a bright yellow vest, everyone wanted to talk to me. It's the EAA's and my own personal policy not to take photos of crashes, so you won't see anything from me, but there were a lot of people taking pics. The stories were rough to listen to. Every single person who spoke to me told me they had begged the pilot not to take off. They said he was taking on water and they told him it wasn't safe. He insisted he knew what he was doing. Because they were concerned, they were all watching him leave and it really shook them up. Sad day.
Click to expand...

Taking on water?! :eek: Were his bilge pumps not operational, or not large enough to offset the volume of water coming in?!
 
dottat said:
What I also found very odd is that one of the dock guys took the small raft and went around the accident aircraft washing the algae off it before they departed.
Click to expand...

I was there to take photos for a story on another float plane. The plane I was shooting was on pontoons and the owners walked around with a broom wiping off the algae. He told me they do it to keep from contaminating their home lake and it's becoming a big issue in the seaplane world. On planes without pontoons, I think they offer to do it from a boat.
 
Lowflynjack said:
I was there to take photos for a story on another float plane. The plane I was shooting was on pontoons and the owners walked around with a broom wiping off the algae. He told me they do it to keep from contaminating their home lake and it's becoming a big issue in the seaplane world. On planes without pontoons, I think they offer to do it from a boat.
Click to expand...
That makes sense. Those little things were everywhere. The lake aircraft did look level at the dock for what it's worth. Those take off photos showing zero flaps might be more indicative of the get there itis that on face value this appears to be. Shame overall.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
Lowflynjack said:
... Every single person who spoke to me told me they had begged the pilot not to take off. They said he was taking on water and they told him it wasn't safe. He insisted he knew what he was doing. Because they were concerned, they were all watching him leave and it really shook them up. Sad day.
Click to expand...

Yikes.

If I ever say this to anyone, please stop me and tell me to teach you what I am doing. Maybe I'll recognize what is happening and change my thought process.
 
Zeldman said:
If I ever say this to anyone, please stop me and tell me to teach you what I am doing. Maybe I'll recognize what is happening and change my thought process.
Click to expand...
Indeed. But it happens. Here's a local crash from 4 years ago:
"When the pilot arrived at the fixed base operator (FBO), an employee from the FBO questioned the pilot's intent to fly in the windy weather. The pilot indicated that he planned to fly and that the winds would not be a problem." (from https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb....ev_id=20130303X91231&ntsbno=CEN13FA183&akey=1)
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
Crosswind component of 39 kts. Yikes.
Click to expand...

I suspect that his faith in his piloting and his equipment was well-founded. He took off successfully. He would've gotten away with it if he considered the terrain, ate a small tailwind component, and departed to the north, where he didn't have to climb and could accelerate to Va instead. Rotors tearing from the ridge is what did him in, not the sheer wind.

In any case, if people around you start questioning your decision to fly it may be a cue to reconsider. In case of the Mooney, the pilot probably was used to everyone pointing out to him that he flies in winds stronger than most. I fly the same exact type and my crosswind limit is only 17 knots. He probably wrote it off as the usual, but Angel Fire was not the usual. That valley has seriously nasty winds.

Maybe the Lake's pilot was getting used to everyone pointing out to him that the hull was leaking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top