SR-22 ditching 200nm from Hilo

About malfunctioning ferry tank valves...

I think I've posted about this before.

Ferrying a Cessna cropduster we had the hopper rigged to carry fuel. Usually put 150 gals up there out of a possible 300. That's plus the 50 in the wings.

One leg I smelled fuel and saw a steady drip from the valve. Jiggling it I found upward pressure on it stopped the leak. Fortunately within reach I had both a bungee and some tywraps.

Viola!

16190162999_55910b83f0_o.jpg


In any case, I really doubt I'd be flexible enough to pull that off now!
 
I have heard they can add the chute to 172s and 182s now.
How much does that cost?
 
Great camera work by the C-130 crew.

Wonder if they were tempted to squeeze one off ... ? lol
 
Without the chute, he would have had enough payload to take all the fuel he needed to get to Hilo :wink2:
 
weilke said:
Without the chute, he would have had enough payload to take all the fuel he needed to get to Hilo :wink2:
Click to expand...

He had plenty of fuel to get there. The valve didn't work. Bigger wing tanks wouldn't have made any difference.
 
Had three hours fuel remaining,couldn't get it out of the tank. I would be very happy that the chute was aboard and worked.
 
I did a bit of math: Parachute pops at 40'30" mark of the video (see timer in upper left corner of the video). Splash-down at 44'00". Three and a half minutes at 1,700 feet per minute suggests the deployment occurred at 6,000 MSL.
 
weilke said:
That's what I would say too.
Click to expand...

SixPapaCharlie said:
interesting
Click to expand...

FastEddieB said:
That's insulting.

What's happened to this site?
Click to expand...

Playing cynic again but I could easily see the pilot saying this. I mean the water 200+ miles off Hawaii is no doubt very deep (Id guess around 3 miles) and the odds of them actually getting the wreckage out are fairly slim. Pilot covers any mistake he may have made and well thats a fairly human thing to do.
 
If there had been a US aircraft carrier in the area and the aircraft in distress did not have a BRS (and had perhaps a bit slower landing speed like a 172/182) would it be permitted to land on the carrier deck (not unannounced of course)? I'd certainly want to try a carrier landing in a 172 before trying an ocean landing in 9-12' seas.
 
DesertNomad said:
If there had been a US aircraft carrier in the area and the aircraft in distress did not have a BRS (and had perhaps a bit slower landing speed like a 172/182) would it be permitted to land on the carrier deck (not unannounced of course)? I'd certainly want to try a carrier landing in a 172 before trying an ocean landing in 9-12' seas.
Click to expand...

maybe if they have a clear deck - no way they risk expen$$$$ive equipment

That said, wasn't there a "fly-off" of some general aviation aircraft off a carrier out near Hawaii a few years ago?
 
Gav1n said:
I now want BRS. Amazing stuff.
Click to expand...


It would be great if the GA fleet were mostly equipped with BRS.

At this point, we need more manufacturers, including kit suppliers, to design their airframes around BRS.

Maybe if more pilots start expressing the same thought you just did, it will eventually happen,
 
NoHeat said:
It would be great if the GA fleet were mostly equipped with BRS.

At this point, we need more manufacturers, including kit suppliers, to design their airframes around BRS.

Maybe if more pilots start expressing the same thought you just did, it will eventually happen,
Click to expand...


This is a paradigm shift that older pilots have not embarrassed thus far in GA. While I sold my Cirrus 4 years ago this month... My wife will not allow me to buy another airplane without BRS. And I concur, as it provides a pilot 1 more option!
 
FastEddieB said:
That's insulting.

What's happened to this site?
Click to expand...

You have BRS correct?

When I enter my LSA years, I really like the looks of the sky arrow.
I wish it was a tad faster but I think it just looks fun.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
You have BRS correct?
Click to expand...

No.

When I bought my Cirrus, the BRS was not a factor.

But after a while I did see the definite advantage to having one more option in certain situations.

The Sky Arrow does not have a chute, and I'm not sure a retrofit is feasible. Even if it was, despite its gossamer looks the Sky Arrow is quite the porker - my original EW was 861 lbs. It's now just a tad lighter with a lithium iron battery, but useful load is still a bit compromised.

But I still love the little plane, and I count on its low (39k) stall speed to at least give me a chance of surviving an emergency landing in inhospitable terrain.

In any case, swing by Copperhill some time and we'll take her up!
 
DesertNomad said:
If there had been a US aircraft carrier in the area and the aircraft in distress did not have a BRS (and had perhaps a bit slower landing speed like a 172/182) would it be permitted to land on the carrier deck (not unannounced of course)?
Click to expand...

An incident very similar to this one occurred back in the '70s-- and the Navy's answer back then was an emphatic NO.

From musty memory: it was a Cessna 180 on a ferry flight to Hawaii, and the pump used to transfer fuel from the fuselage tanks to the wing tanks broke; the standby pump didn't work, either. This happened just after topping off the wing tanks, so the pilot had several hours to work the problem and come up with a plan.

He rendezvoused with a carrier and tried to talk them into letting him land on it. They told him no, but launched a rescue copter that literally followed him all the way down, and he ditched right alongside the carrier. The airplane flipped over, but he got out easily and was probably in the water less than five minutes.

This was all well documented at the time, since there were about a thousand sailors with cameras lining the rail of the carrier. For several years afterward, the FAA had a nice slide show about the incident that they presented at safety seminars, using a slew of the still photos that the sailors took.
 
LDJones said:
Turned into the wind and making 30 kts, I'd think a carrier landing would be pretty easy in most GA aircraft. You'd probably have an effective touchdown speed of less than 30 kts.
Click to expand...

Unless the deck was pitching up and down like would be likely in this case.
 
flibmeister said:
An incident very similar to this one occurred back in the '70s-- and the Navy's answer back then was an emphatic NO.

From musty memory: it was a Cessna 180 on a ferry flight to Hawaii, and the pump used to transfer fuel from the fuselage tanks to the wing tanks broke; the standby pump didn't work, either. This happened just after topping off the wing tanks, so the pilot had several hours to work the problem and come up with a plan.

He rendezvoused with a carrier and tried to talk them into letting him land on it. They told him no, but launched a rescue copter that literally followed him all the way down, and he ditched right alongside the carrier. The airplane flipped over, but he got out easily and was probably in the water less than five minutes.

This was all well documented at the time, since there were about a thousand sailors with cameras lining the rail of the carrier. For several years afterward, the FAA had a nice slide show about the incident that they presented at safety seminars, using a slew of the still photos that the sailors took.
Click to expand...

I have no interest in ocean crossings, so it won't ever be my problem, but I have to say, if the ocean is rough and pitching, I would likely tell them they can kill me or arrest me, it's their choice, but I'm landing on the deck anyhow.
 
LDJones said:
Turned into the wind and making 30 kts, I'd think a carrier landing would be pretty easy in most GA aircraft. You'd probably have an effective touchdown speed of less than 30 kts.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting the up-and-down part, which GA pilots have zero experience with (even in earthquake country). Also, the deck is angled, and the *runway is moving away from you*. This is a sight picture that I don't see ending well for any carrier-landing novice, under severe stress, in a GA plane.
 
Navy pilots are considered the best die to the skill required to land in a carrier. To think we as GA pilots can land in one even under the best sea conditions (btw out in the open ocean the seas and winds are almost never calm) and even having the carrier stopped is wishful thinking at best. Better hone those water landing skills, get a plane with BRS, or avoid the open sea.
 
Last edited:
Dav8or said:
I have no interest in ocean crossings, so it won't ever be my problem, but I have to say, if the ocean is rough and pitching, I would likely tell them they can kill me or arrest me, it's their choice, but I'm landing on the deck anyhow.
Click to expand...

I would do the same.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
You're forgetting the up-and-down part, which GA pilots have zero experience with (even in earthquake country). Also, the deck is angled, and the *runway is moving away from you*. This is a sight picture that I don't see ending well for any carrier-landing novice, under severe stress, in a GA plane.
Click to expand...

So land on the deck ignoring the "runway"... it's nearly 1000' long and moving away from you at 30kts.
 
DesertNomad said:
So land on the deck ignoring the "runway"... it's nearly 1000' long and moving away from you at 30kts.
Click to expand...

If you miss, you're going off the end, and you're going to die. Your heirs will get a bill from the Navy for the propellers you ruining as your flivver got sucked under the ship.

I'd take my chances landing on the back side of a swell.
 
I'd think that landing a light civil on a carrier wouldn't be that incredibly difficult. There are a couple things that one would need to be aware of though. One, since the angled deck is moving away, you need to continuously chase lineup if the ship is making its own wind. Continual right wing down corrections. Normally there isn't a significant crosswind, so that shouldn't be an issue. Your closure would be nearly nothing, so you'd have that going for you. The biggest problem would be the power available. If the ship is making its own wind, there is a pretty decent "burble" about 1/4 mile behind the ship.....akin to a very tame microburst. You will initially get a bit of a "liftie", at which point the natural reaction is to take off a bunch of power.....and then you get hit with the downdraft. Plenty of times in a jet with 36k lbs of afterburning thrust I have underestimated (or I guess overcorrected) this fact of life and have glumly slammed into the ace in full blower. So I small prop plane, you'd just have to understand it was there potentially given the ship's movement. Then again, your closure is not great so probably time enough to correct. Big thing there is the danger would be the round-down/fantail just like it is for any other aircraft.......I doubt you would ever be slow enough if you landed long to just dribble off and fall into the water.....it takes a cessna about 4 feet to do a roll and go. If you landed long and didn't realize it, you could just turn towards the bow (assuming the deck was cleared for such unheard of theatrics) and get an extra football field to stop in. The deck movement is normally not excessive.....I've seen it real bad, but unless you are like in the open ocean in the atlantic, it normally isn't crazy (maybe pacific fleet guys saw it more). That said, a pitching deck could probably collapse your gear. Oh yeah, and have them strip the wires......you might flip upside down if your gear caught one, particularly guys with little wheels and wheelie pants a la cessna. Anyway, just some real baseless "what-if's" to ponder
 
Last edited:
NoHeat said:
Maybe if more pilots start expressing the same thought you just did, it will eventually happen,
Click to expand...


In that case.... I WANT BRS. I WANT BRS. I WANT BRS. DID I MENTION I WANT BRS? :)

...small print - just keep the price down please.
 
BigBadLou said:
I liked the shots of him in the life raft. Looked like a floatie in a pool on vacation. Just add a drink in hand. Oh wait, that was an hour later, on the cruise ship.

Glad he found the ship, that is awesome. I wonder how much the cruise ship personnel minded this life-saving exercise. I bet the starboard side of the ship was packed with passengers taking pictures and videos. :)
Click to expand...

I'm sure they didn't mind at all. Once the distress call came in, doing anything other than rendering assistance would have been unthinkable.

Rich
 
RJM62 said:
I'm sure they didn't mind at all. Once the distress call came in, doing anything other than rendering assistance would have been unthinkable.
Click to expand...

To put it in another context, having to watch somebody in distress and be unable to help is a horrible place to be.

About 25 years ago I spent one night watching another platform burn. I was on a jack-up drilling rig so there was no way we could assist. We didn't even have a workboat to send them. About all we could do was read about it in the papers when we got on shore...
 
Lindberg said:
Everybody lies.
Click to expand...

Maybe.

And, being a skeptic, I would not completely rule out that possibility.

But what is unseemly is the rush to judgement. To the extent pilots are a "brotherhood", should we not at least give our "brothers" the benefit of the doubt?

In this case, it was a seasoned pilot apparently flying a familiar route where fuel needs would be carefully calculated and enormous ferry tanks were installed.* So I think it's silly to label it "a stupid pilot trick", as it was on another forum, or paint the pilot as a scheming liar trying to cover some sort of rookie miscalculation of fuel required.

But That's Just Me! (tm)


* a picture of a typical ferry tank setup was posted online. If I can find it in the public domain or get permission I will repost it here.

edited to add:

Ferry+tank+install.jpg


Courtesy of International Ferry Flights. All the seats, save the pilot's, are shipped seperately to make room for those tanks.
 
Last edited:
Gav1n said:
In that case.... I WANT BRS. I WANT BRS. I WANT BRS. DID I MENTION I WANT BRS? :)

...small print - just keep the price down please.
Click to expand...

There is much consternation over on the COPA board about escalating repack charges.

Done every 10 years, they started out at about $10k. Now, with the additional cost of mandatory switching to electronic activation, the price has escalated to over $15k and in some cases approaching $20k.

Unhappy campers, since Cirrus owners are, for now, held hostage to these prices.
 
That's something else to think about - on a ferry flight like that, with all those fuel tanks right behind your head (maybe they are full when you ditch), slamming into the face of a wave might be...unpleasant, for a very short while.
 
Clark1961 said:
To put it in another context, having to watch somebody in distress and be unable to help is a horrible place to be.

About 25 years ago I spent one night watching another platform burn. I was on a jack-up drilling rig so there was no way we could assist. We didn't even have a workboat to send them. About all we could do was read about it in the papers when we got on shore...
Click to expand...

I understand and can relate. I once spent the better part of a day as part of a detail trying to extinguish a fire on a small freighter that was such a lost cause that even the rats were jumping overboard and taking their chances. Then after we abandoned the effort, we got to spend another half a day watching and waiting for her to sink so we could chart the wreck, her crew standing beside us.

All her crew were rescued, but it was still a strange and sad feeling. Ships and airplanes do seem, to those who love them, to have lives of their own.

Rich
 
Last edited:
Do they ever use cargo ships to get these planes across the oceans? Seems like it would be a safer alternative.
 
FlyingTiger said:
Do they ever use cargo ships to get these planes across the oceans? Seems like it would be a safer alternative.
Click to expand...

yup, they put'em in a container and away they go

some assembly required on the far end...

and containers get lost off ships every now and then...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top