I'm a licensed AME, a pilot and I operate 5 PT6s in turbo otters and Cessna caravan on amphibs. We used to operate caravans on wheel skis during the winter time, we've had several prop strikes because the nose ski went through the ice and 8 years ago a prop strike on a PT6A-114A cost about 150,000$, free turbine or not you have to send the whole engine for prop strike inspection and the damage is not only in the power turbine/ reduction sections the gas generator doesn't like it at all either.
I can understand making the mistake of keeping the fill gates open by accident, but after he clearly realized what was happening, keeping power in like that and risking so much engine damage was beyond reckless.
Skin, tin, ticket… in that order, always. I will never get this unhealthy fixation with fucking _property_ over people’s lives. Especially in aviation. I will not think twice to destroy an entire airplane and end my career to save my skin. Besides.. the engine was toast the moment the floats went underwater. Plane sinks.. engine is immersed while hot soaked. Done.
The Airboss takes water directly into the pontoon floats as part of the fire fighting system. He accidentally left the fill gates open while landing & taxiing. When the Turbine Airboss comes in for a pick up run, it is at full power and can sustain flight despite increasing 800 gallon load and then lift. It cannot do it from a stand still.
It's water tank is full (adding 3360kg of weight to the aircraft) The plane is built to skim the water while in flight to fill the tank, or to take off from a long runway using it's wheels if the tank is full. (not to do a water takeoff fully loaded) Its the same as loading an extra 37 large adults in your canoe, and wondering why water is coming over the edge of your boat. Airshows cause pilots to do things they normally wouldn't do under normal conditions.
"Airshows cause pilots to do things they normally wouldn't do under normal conditions." I'd like to add ... causes unprofessional pilots... Professionalism in aviation is all about having a plan and then following it, especially when it comes to demonstration flights.
Samuel Eketorp I think he just forgot he was loaded (a scary thought I know) but it looks like he tried to power out when the plane starts to sink right in the beginning then he gives up, that was an expensive mistake
I hope to Jesus he wasn't a contract pilot, he's out about $3 million. Thank you for the recap I wasn't sure what happened, I'm just now getting into this interest
Pride will do things like that to you. Had he just admitted he made a mistake, shut the engine down and gotten a tow to shore or a dock. Only his pride might have really suffered. Little if any damage would have happened. As it is..... I'd hate to have to pay for that repair.
+Damien Mullins The cost of an engine and prop is less than sinking the entire plane, which would be the end result as it's pretty obvious the aircraft is sinking. Calling the Pilot an idiot is incredibly short sighted.
+Rob Bown the AC is NOT sinking, the floats are taking on water as designed for FF but pilot failed to follow check lists and close the valves prior to landing. FAIL
Leevi Hinkkala The 802 Fireboss doesn't collect it's water in the floats. It does collect it through them, feeding it to the hopper. The hopper is in front of the cockpit, behind the firewall, and if you view any good shot, you can see the water being released from under the belly of the aircraft, above the floats. As shown - www.airtractor.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/aircraft_medium/planes/air-tractor-802F-fire-boss-3.jpg
Leevi Hinkkala On top of this, those floats are each generating 10,000lb's of displacement, the aircraft's max gross weight - including it's water load - is 16,000lb's, so unless the aircraft has float damage it should still be safely above the water line.
Yes. it is a PT6 but the prop shaft is still connected to the reduction gearbox which is driven by the power turbine. There is a real risk to the prop shaft and components in the reduction gearbox not to mention stresses on the prop itself..
Es notorio que el piloto tiene problemas con el avion, y me llama la atencion que como tu me dices jsmpirineos, le digan que se de prisa para salir, viendo que esta aproblemado... piloto prioridad numero UNO su intregridad y el avion...adios con las presiones externas, apagar el motor y pedir ayuda por ultimo a un bote cercano... el avion de atras puede esperar...
@Mav1843 I don't know about the At-6 but most turbo props are geared, meaning the prop isn't directly connected to the shaft of the turbine. So they'll need a new prop and probably new gearing but the engine itself is usually alright.
I'm not sure what happened here (punctured float?) but the scooped water is NOT stored in the floats! There is an 800 US gallon fiberglass tank in front of and below the cockpit. Hydraulically operated bomb bay doors directly under the pilot dump the water between the floats. The floats themselves help to contain the drop and make for pinpoint accuracy.
While you are right about the water being in the hopper, the float was not punctured. The floats can only sustain the weight of the empty airplane. Not sure where you heard that they help with accuracy.
I believe the pilot thought, as I would have also, that if the plane were sinking, I might as well see if I can get it in the shallows any way I can. Engine is fine, drive probably not so much. Cheaper then a water recovery though.
@gowill2 Float ag planes are rated for MTOW for buoyancy it'd be an issue with his floats... and it's pretty hard to overload a ag plane - unless you put ball bearings in the hopper....
Not understanding why he didnt just shut down and get towed out where they could dump the water hopper? It would have been embarrassing but little to no damage.
everything is so gd expensive in those things its crazy, overhauled exchange CT vane ring, large exit duct, combustion liner and CT balancing cost me 65k last year
As a glider pilot, you better take that first statement back and grow up. The Oxford English Dictionary clearly states: "An aircraft [glider] capable of gliding and soaring in air currents...etc" OED is unquestionable
Now look what ya did, ya done went and broke a perfectly good aircraft and I get to watch. How the heck did utube algorithm bring me to this after watching a kid put mentos into a coke? This quarantine it getting boring.
yo creo que hay que sumar mas factores,sin contar que la organizacion no le concedio un barco para remolcar el avion,como la presion en una exhibicion y aparte como puedes leer en el comentario de abajo el viento era muy fuerte y se estaba llebando el avion con el riesco de encallar ....
deberias de leer el comentario de abajo creo que queda bastante claro ,el pidio ayuda a la organización pero le contestaron que no se la podian y que se diera prisa ,ya que habia otro avion esperando para hacer su exhibicion,ademas no entiendo porque se descalifica al piloto me gustaria veros a todos en esa situacion haber como lo haciais
@benspreen The aircraft has already been designed, and had a problem. Past tense. You can't foresee something from the past. To foresee a problem with the design, you would have to do it before it was designed, or at least before it became a problem. foresee 1. to see or know beforehand Rest in peace, English language.
The floats can be filled with water to drop on fires. That should be done "on the step" while skimming the water at 80 kts. After the water is dropped, and the floats are full of air, the plane can be landed like normal. To land the plane with the floats full of water is stupid. Also, prop transmission and engine is damaged if the prop goes into the water like that.
i was there ,and after the accident i talked with the pilot,and the problem was that,in this plane ,with more than 6 knots of cross wind and low speed in the water , the rudder has no effectiveness and he tried to turn but the wind was too strong and he contacted with the organisation by radio to request a boat to tow the plane but ,there was another plane waiting to land and he had to hurry up and tried it again ......
The PT6 turbine is not connected to the propeller, it is a free turbine, consequence of this incident should be limited to propeller, prop shaft and drive impeller. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong 😑
@@delh1415 anytime you see steam coming from a turbine engine, it means that something that was extremely hot was shock cooled by water, effectively ruining the structure of the metals contained on the turbine blades instantly!
it depends on the airframe and how the prop strike happens but often you get a lot of FOD from all the crap the prop brings up that just gets sucked up into the compressor so nicked compressor blades, damaged CT blades, I've also seen out of limit ct rubs caused by prop strikes, compressor rubs, bent shafts etc. if there is no FOD and the engine is idle its not so bad, this dude was definitely not idle tho :)
A little late to the party here...but I would tend to disagree. Maybe a HSI and possibly a new prop. I didn’t see sudden stoppage or broken blades here. The prop goes into full feather either (automatically) because it flamed out due to a massive amount of water ingestion or the pilot finally shut down the engine and feathered the prop, either of which would cause the sudden prop deceleration captured in the video. My bet is that he/she finally realized they were fighting a losing battle, shut down the engine and got a tow into shore.
And Canada, no no no, Utah salt lake, at U42 south valley regional. And with a great instructor named John. And im this far because i started my training when i was 16 and got my license soon after i turned 17.
maybe the pilot feared the plane would sink further and tried to get it close to land by any means...as long as u get some airflow over the wings at least u dont go down...dunno but seems he was trying sumthing...
wow!! the only youtube comment that has ever made me literally LOL! I agree this guy is putting on a display of what is wrong with so many people.....not owning up to a mistake or problem and stopping it.
I just got my seaplane rating and they said that hitting the prop on water like that ruins the prop and engine. Was this the case with the PT6 on that AT?
Lol I seen a few boat launches like that while fishing. Takes a few minutes to notice you are sinking since by the time you see water come through the floor there’s over a foot in the bilge
It doesn't matter what might have gone wrong to cause the prop to dip into the water, but I think by second time it happened I would have had the good sense to shut it off before I wrecked the whole plane.
I jump out of planes when possible. Some pilots scare the hell out of me. The martini pilot reference is a reference to Friday afternoons usually when weekend pilots decide to make a martini and fly to their cottage. They dont file a flight plan, fly VOR, and usually fly right through an active paradrop zone. I have been on a flight twice when our pilot had to alter course to avoid the idiot. ATC aren't much help. Young pilot should ask questions .....not spout off like Maverick.
It is not a seaplane, the floats are only to be used on the step to refill with water. This guy overpowered it into the water. He was trying to get up on the step, but can't, it's not designed to, so as he adds power, the tips drive under and then as he picks up speed, the floats are trying to dynamically dive. When he lets off the throttle, it comes back up on bouyancy.
In the beginning of the clip one can see the front wheels of the amphibian are not retracted , so the floats are filling up with water . He could not have landed wheels down out of the floats , because then the plane nosedives and headrolls right into the water . I presume whilst taxiing on the water he must have extended his landinggear one way or the other , which made the floats start to sink . His attempts to taxi the plane to the beach was not possible because his prop came lower and touched the waterline . Expensive problem , but as pilots say , "every landing that you can walk away from is a good one" , and that apparently applies to this situation .
@@mariobotti1952 Ah , so even when on water with the gear extended the floats are watertight ? If so then i am mistaken . But why is the gear here then extended while taxiing on water ?
@@erwinb3412 I don't know if is a mistake or there is a water ramp somewhere. Anyway you can taxi on water with gear extended ( of course with not to much power ).
oh thats not super bright. Props + water = dollars. Especially with the sort of props on a turboshaft. A CPL presumably was controlling that thing. Man.
