Skymaster lost, San Juan Islands WA

[scade]

A skymaster went down of Orcas island last week. Sounds like dual flame outs.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...05X00413&key=1

[hewilson]

Ernie,

Have you read the NTSB preliminary report and have any thoughts? I would be interested given your expertise.

Hugh

[Ernie Martin]

I'm no expert, but here are my initial thougths on the accident.

First, note from the picture below that the airport is smack against the water. Given that the airplane went down in water a few minutes after take-off, it seems reasonable to assume that it took off on rwy 34 (I did a search for almanac data for Anacortes, the closest weather station, to look for wind direction that day, but without success).

Second, info provided by the surviving passenger suggests that indeed both engines quit, after a short period of running rough and after the pilot seemed to be switching tanks.

Third, the combination of rough-running (and perhaps underpowered) engines shortly after departure and the pilot's attention to switching tanks and re-starting the engines may explain why the airplane didn't glide and instead "dropped like a rock..[and]...hit real hard and all the windows blew out".

Fourth, it is interesting to note -- heck, not interesting, but almost incredible -- that despite this being described as essentially a "crash" (as opposed to a controlled ditching, with soft touch-down on the water), "both occupants successfully exited the airplane before it sank". Although there isn't a wide body of data on how long a Skymaster will remain floating before sinking, data from other aircraft suggests that it might float for several minutes, and this accident supports that.

Finally, it is unfortunate that the NTSB report does not state why the pilot died after exiting the aircraft, while the passenger suffered minor injuries. Was it a result of major injuries suffered at impact, did he drown (and was a life jacket available), was it exposure in the cold water? Also, it would be nice to know if the gear train was down (touch-down in water is safer with the train retracted) and if the passenger saw in the pre-flight if the pilot extracted fuel from all tanks and fuel strainers until there was no water.

On the basis of what the NTSB report has, my take is that any double engine failure after take-off -- whether over land or water -- is likely to be fatal. In this instance, with the impact described, I think I would rather have been over water. In my "Ditching" page on www.SkymasterUS.com I cover the preparations for over-water flight; having the aircraft in perfect condition and carrying life jackets are key recommendations. And maintaining control -- "flying the aircraft" -- is of course crucial, regardless of whether you're over land or water. And this accident doesn't change (and perhaps supports) the statistics, which show that controlled ditching is as survivable as an emergency ground landing away from an airport.

Ernie

[hewilson]

Thanks for the reply Ernie. Though I understand your hesitation to don the mantle of "expert", having read your essays on both fuel management and ditching, I thought this case seemed right up your alley so to speak.

As a pathologist, who like you, is not an "expert" - in forensics that is, I am a surgical pathologist - I have some experience in forensics nonetheless. In my early years in practice I supplemented my income by moonlighting as the backup for the local county coroner's pathologist when he was out of town or otherwise indisposed. This entailed obtaining some specific forensics education as well. (And also resulted in me testifying in a murder trial sixteen years after the fact!)

Given that experience, I too was a bit confounded by conflicting elements in the survivor's testimony and the NTSB summary. If the aircraft did not glide well as reported, it is likely the pilot did not follow the old adage of "aviate, navigate, communicate" and subsequently "crashed" rather than "ditched." The survivor describes what sounds to be a violent impact and that would corroborate a story of relative inattention on the pilot's part with a subsequent crash.

Yet both occupants survived impact and exited the aircraft. And while one died, the other suffered only "minor injuries." This sounds more like a controlled ditch and calls into question the accuracy of the survivor's observations. One has to wonder if the pilot suffered life threatening injuries on impact but was young, strong and agile enough to exit the plane despite his injuries or if he was relatively unscathed but was perhaps a poor swimmer. Though the prevailing water temps in the San Juan Straits are potentially lethal, one would imagine that with the sophistication of the EMS and Coast Guard in that region that hypothermia alone should not have been the cause of death.

It seems there is much more to be known about this one. From my background and experience, I suspect the survivor is relatively inexperienced in aviation. If so, it is likely he did not pay sufficient attention to or understand the pre-flight inspection enough to even offer an opinion as to whether the fuel sumps had been adequately drained. I suspect there was a fuel water issue and that the pilot actually ditched rather than crashed. Both occupants likely suffered survivable injuries but that floatation devices were unavailable and the pilot's injuries inhibited his swimming capabilitties.

Of course all the above is speculation and despite the sadness at the loss of the pilot I find this crash to be a huge potential learning opportunity.

My condolences to the pilot's family should they read this.

[kevin]

Two thoughts:

Even the most controlled water landing (in a seaplane for example), let alone a ditching, seems like a really hard impact to someone not used to it.

Also "not glide well" might be defined as "not well enough to get back to land". A 337 with both engines out comes down FAST. One of the things I used to like about my 337s was that it was almost impossible to be too high on an approach, because if you pulled the power, the descent angle was very steep. To a passenger in an emergency (and possibly to the pilot), this descent angle could well be terrifying.

These two things together might help explain the passenger's comments.

Kevin

[hewilson]

Good point from an experienced Skymaster jockey.

[scade]

The local paper is reporting the pilot was 67 years old and was found floating face down about 50 minutes after the crash. The surviving passenger was picked up after 45 minutes.

Seems like a long response time for a crash that was witnessed.

Steve Cade

[Paul Sharp]

Yes, if it took that long it seems too much time before rescue. But given that amount of time in the water anyone could easily drown, especially given the effects of the water temperatures. And there might have been shock, etc. from the crash (physical and not just mental).

And if there were any waves, even a good "ditch" could have hit a wave and made the landing very hard.

[hewilson]

50 minutes in that water is long enough to die of hypothermia even without any injuries but all the more sufficient with. I'm wondering if the NTSB final report will address the seemingly long EMS response time. But I would be more intersted in the details of the pilot's pre-flight.