Single engine performance on these are not the best. Glad he left the gear up.

Ah! I just read what the report said (after watching the vid), so he had gear problems, should have just landed on the runway.. they don't get that messed up when they are geared up, typically not hard to fix.. fishing it out of the water could definitely complicate things!

Bdiazair wrote:Ah! I just read what the report said (after watching the vid), so he had gear problems, should have just landed on the runway.. they don't get that messed up when they are geared up, typically not hard to fix.. fishing it out of the water could definitely complicate things!

Huge amount to remove! The State of Hawaii hates wrecks in the coastal waters.

Belly landing on land= insurance rebuild 337+damage history
Ditch in water= totaled 337. And if it survives the crash, the reclamation company will surely bend it getting it out of the water.

Remember the PBY that was destroyed last year?

Crzyivan13 wrote:Belly landing on land= insurance rebuild 337+damage history
Ditch in water= totaled 337. And if it survives the crash, the reclamation company will surely bend it getting it out of the water.

Remember the PBY that was destroyed last year?

These don't get that messed up with a gear up landing, especially with the front engine not running and the prop horizontal (no prop strike)... ditch in water, he's lucky he didn't flip the plane and drown. At least at the airport he would have had emergency crews available. Planes always get bent moving them off the runway, insurance companies know this and really don't care.

My recollection is that the FAA only considers a gear up landing as an incident and not an accident.
Could be wrong - been wrong before!

Wannabe

wannabe wrote:My recollection is that the FAA only considers a gear up landing as an incident and not an accident.
Could be wrong - been wrong before!

Wannabe

A gear up is not an accident. Unless someone is hurt.

The tropics ....

PHNL RWY (4)R was certainly available, even with foam. But, hey the water temperature was 78F.

Seems a odd choice for a gear up?

The article says the water landing was the right choice over a runway landing gear up.
Could someone explain why that's the case for a 337? I can't think of any situation that I'd prefer to ditch in the water vs an airport (with fire and rescue at the ready) unless they were flying the wrong flag and had GNS waiting for me.

I can only think of one reason to not use the runway: If I was an old man near the end of my flying career, owned a 337, and had a gear up event, I'm not sure I'd want the aircraft to survive the forced landing. That's, of course, only if my hull was well and fully insured.

It is quite possible, however, that he truly feared the runway and thought his chances were better in the water.

Pinecone wrote:I can only think of one reason to not use the runway: If I was an old man near the end of my flying career, owned a 337, and had a gear up event, I'm not sure I'd want the aircraft to survive the forced landing. That's, of course, only if my hull was well and fully insured.

It is quite possible, however, that he truly feared the runway and thought his chances were better in the water.

This was my point.

I known the guy who owns it. I'll be down at the airport this week and ask why it was ditched in the seaplane lane... Not sure who the pilot was but, will ask.

I think I known the guy who did the last 100hour too.

I can't imagine choosing water over the runway. It's about survival. An aviator shouldn't give a rat's you know what about incident vs accident, insurance, whatever. Warm water doesn't help if you drown in it.

akaviator wrote:I can't imagine choosing water over the runway. It's about survival. An aviator shouldn't give a rat's you know what about incident vs accident, insurance, whatever. Warm water doesn't help if you drown in it.

Agreed, first time I have seen it. I probably would not of thought of using the seaplane lane.

Kind of interesting but, strange to me too.

Crzyivan13 wrote:

Pinecone wrote:I can only think of one reason to not use the runway: If I was an old man near the end of my flying career, owned a 337, and had a gear up event, I'm not sure I'd want the aircraft to survive the forced landing. That's, of course, only if my hull was well and fully insured.

It is quite possible, however, that he truly feared the runway and thought his chances were better in the water.

This was my point.

X 3. Nobody would even consider trying to salvage a Mixmaster that'd been dipped in salt water. A runway landing wouldn't have resulted in much damage.....this is a total.

MTV

Sounds like he suffered from overload, crazy decision.

we will see ...

Heck if the fuselage was water tight and it had a couple of outrigger floats on the wings the 337 would make a pretty good amphibian from the looks of it.