C337 Lands in Lagoon next to HNL

Cessnaflyer

Cessnaflyer

Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/...r-experiencing-mechanical-issues?sf20225547=1

HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) -

An aircraft ran into trouble mid-flight Tuesday afternoon about five miles south of Oahu and was forced to land in the water.

A team of emergency crews from the Coast Guard, EMS and Honolulu Fire Department are now rushing to assist the pilot, who is reportedly uninjured.

The first call for help came in before 1:30 p.m. from the Lagoon Drive area. Initial reports indicated that the pilot of a Cessna 337 was experiencing mechanical problems and planned to ditch the aircraft in nearby Keehi Lagoon.

Authorities said the pilot was unable to get the plane's landing gear down.

The pilot was the only person on board.
Click to expand...

Was the pilot trying to be Sullenberger? He decided to go sink it instead of going to the runway right next to the lagoon?
 
BS. Somebody wanted the insurance money. The cost to fix a waterlogged plane is much more than that to fixing some sheet metal after a gear-up landing.
 
Cessnaflyer said:
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/...r-experiencing-mechanical-issues?sf20225547=1



Was the pilot trying to be Sullenberger? He decided to go sink it instead of going to the runway right next to the lagoon?
Click to expand...

I asked that question on one of the local aviation FB groups earlier today and was told that because a) there are all kinds of fuel lines around the cockpit and b) the plane is balanced front to back with the two engines, it's a lot better to put it down in the water.

I don't buy this for a second, but since I have absolutely zero time in the plane I didn't have much to respond with.
 
BobDDuck said:
a) there are all kinds of fuel lines around the cockpit and b) the plane is balanced front to back with the two engines, it's a lot better to put it down in the water.
Click to expand...

a) just like every SE Cessna RG that has a fuel selector valve between the front seats?
b) balanced front to back just like...everything...with a forward and aft cg limit?
:ooh:
 
BobDDuck said:
I asked that question on one of the local aviation FB groups earlier today and was told that because a) there are all kinds of fuel lines around the cockpit and b) the plane is balanced front to back with the two engines, it's a lot better to put it down in the water.

I don't buy this for a second, but since I have absolutely zero time in the plane I didn't have much to respond with.
Click to expand...
I think all of the Cessnas with that gear system should be ditched in the ocean just on principle.
 
Yeah...some weird aeronautical decision making on that one. Short of an aircraft having floats, I don't see why one would ever choose to dump it in the water vs a foamed runway with crash rescue ready to save you.
 
deadstick said:
BS. Somebody wanted the insurance money. The cost to fix a waterlogged plane is much more than that to fixing some sheet metal after a gear-up landing.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter any more. With airplane prices the way they are, and the cost of repair and parts, even seemingly minor damage often winds up totaling the airframe.

With a 337 that geared up, you're looking at a LOT of sheet metal repairs, maybe some stringer/bulkhead damage, a bunch of parts from Textron ($$$$), two props and two prop strike inspections. Plus labor.

Unless he had it WAY overinsured, that's probably a total loss no matter what. At that point it's the insurance company's call, and once it reaches a certain percentage (not close to 100%), they write it off.

Richman
 
ChasenSFO said:
Yeah...some weird aeronautical decision making on that one. Short of an aircraft having floats, I don't see why one would ever choose to dump it in the water vs a foamed runway with crash rescue ready to save you.
Click to expand...

And risking drowning/being unable to egress, even if it was a smooth water landing with little damage. Makes no sense indeed.
 
MikeD said:
And risking drowning/being unable to egress, even if it was a smooth water landing with little damage. Makes no sense indeed.
Click to expand...

I agree Mike. Can't figure this one out. The 23rd TASS at DM bellied an O-2 at Deming, NM. Not much damage. The pilot forgot to put the gear down but he went on to fly F-4s then flew for NWA.

The pilot in the vid ditched in Keehi Lagoon which were the old Clipper seaplane water runways. In another life I used to teach sailing there.
 
According to "Hawaii New Snow". The pilot was advised by HNL controllers to put it in the lagoon.
 
808av8 said:
According to "Hawaii New Snow". The pilot was advised by HNL controllers to put it in the lagoon.
Click to expand...



yifuy.jpg
 
Yeah just watched the 10 o'clock news. Apparently this was not the pilot's first emergency landing in both land and water. Either way, he was NOT the owner of the aircraft and would have little insurance incentives. Maybe he merely fancied a swim.:)
 
808av8 said:
According to "Hawaii New Snow". The pilot was advised by HNL controllers to put it in the lagoon.
Click to expand...

Why would they ? They have four runways to choose from that are basically parallel. Plenty of capacity. It's probably the least busy of all class B I'd imagine.
 
RamRise said:
Why would they ? They have four runways to choose from that are basically parallel. Plenty of capacity. It's probably the least busy of all class B I'd imagine.
Click to expand...

I asked a local 337 owner about this. He's as mystified as anyone as to why the water ditching vs. the land. His guess, since fire risk was very low, was that someone decided that the plane ought to DEFINITELY be totaled. He did point out that if the repair costs came within 70% of the insured hull value that it would have been totaled anyway by the insurance company.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top