Lake Taupo PAC750 Incident

[conman]

I see the report into the PAX750 crash into Lake Taupo is out, interesting that they state that the pilot bailing out was appropriate ( although not before his passengers !) I would have thought with 2000ft you would glide it a reasonable distance and a ditching should have been quite acceptable, seems a bit keen makes you wonder how well pilots are trained for forced landings, I see the pilot was pretty inexperienced with only 600hrs, personally at that height with a controllable aircraft I would have stayed with it , OK for the pax to exit as they are unrestrained.

[FlyingKiwi]

When I did parachute dropping from an airport which was next to the sea I generally felt that I would only bail out of the aircraft if it was completely uncontrollable - wasn't too keen on ending up in the water under a parachute. Having said that, the only (I think?) previous case of a PAC 750 ditching resulted in the pilot drowning which may have been in the back of this guy's mind.

[angelsonefive]

Ditching a fixed undercarriage aircraft in the water is a risky operation, and I would think a bail out is the safer option.

[Dave Homewood]

Just my opinion and I am not a pilot so hope I'll never have to make the choice, but if I had a perfectly serviceable parachute and a dead aeroplane I'd have no trouble saying goodbye to the latter. Even if you ride the aircraft down to the water and ditch successfully the plane's still going to be a write off afterwards, and there's a chance you'd go straight to the bottom with the aeroplane so get out and save your life long before the aircraft impacts with the water.

If it were over a city and you needed to try to get it away from homes and schools before it impacts then maybe there's more of a dilemma, if it is still controllable but lacking power.

[kiwithrottlejockey]

I was in a jump ship once (a Cessna 185) which had the engine go completely quiet while over Flaxmere. I was sitting in the doorway and got pushed out by everybody else exiting the aeroplane. The pilot told us afterwards, he was so busy trying to sort out the engine and get it started again, that he didn't even notice the jumpers buggering off in a huge hurry. When he realised he was going to have to glide to Bridge Pa (not very far away) and carry out a dead-stick landing, he said, “I think you lot had better exit the aeroplane” then turned around to discover the aeroplane was already empty. The rule was that you weren't to exit the aeroplane until the pilot said so, but the jumpers decided they'd rather trust their parachutes than a silent jump ship, so I guess survival instincts took over. We all had a good laugh about it later at the aero club bar.

[craig]

Jul 28, 2017 20:40:55 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

Just my opinion and I am not a pilot so hope I'll never have to make the choice, but if I had a perfectly serviceable parachute and a dead aeroplane I'd have no trouble saying goodbye to the latter. Even if you ride the aircraft down to the water and ditch successfully the plane's still going to be a write off afterwards, and there's a chance you'd go straight to the bottom with the aeroplane so get out and save your life long before the aircraft impacts with the water.

If it were over a city and you needed to try to get it away from homes and schools before it impacts then maybe there's more of a dilemma, if it is still controllable but lacking power.

Dave you are right on the money. The pilot had to make a quick decision to allow time to get out and the parachute open. If the aircraft was going into water regardless what point staying with it.

[The Red Baron]

If you have a look at Google Earth where the plane was when the fan stopped the surrounding country offers nearly zero chance of a sucessful forced landing.
Lake Taupo even in summer is freezing cold,unless your picked up quickly or can swim to shore quickly your survival prospects are slim before hypothermia gets you,and bearing in mind too the only other XL750 water landing had a tragic outcome.
2000 ft aint that high if your going to try your first parachute jump.
I say in the nano seconds he would have had to come to a decision that would save himself,"Well done that man",your certainlly a braver man than I would have been.

[conman]

Remember at around 2000 ft you would have a glide radius of around 7km (assuming around a 1:12 LD) and looking inside that range I can see a couple of very reasonable landing options , short, but we are dealing with an empty aircraft with a short field performance, and a pilot who is operating in the same location on a regular basis should be aware of their engine out glide options (you can get phone apps that will do this for you), it was January so the water temp would have been fine. By jumping out the pilot left an uncontrolled aircraft that could have potentially have caused injury to others.

[haughtney1]

Conman, I'd suggest you go and read the final NTSB report on Cactus 1549, and pay particular attention to the references made to recognition and reaction time, similar assessments were made at that time regarding gliding distance and landing options.
Sitting in the comfort of your chair in no way replicates the reality of an emergency that is (ALWAYS) unexpected, even if you are well prepared. The startle effect and reaction times have been known about for a long time in many industries, however in aviation up until recently there was never a true understanding as accident and incident investigations followed a causal and technical framework.
This person, based on what I've read and researched made an outstanding decision given the set of circumstances and the situation that was presented to him, the only matter for review and reflection was the lack of visibility that precluded him from being physically able to see that everyone had got clear.

[conman]

Am familiar with the US Air ditching which was a fine example of decision making and airmanship, the thing is as a pilot you should always be ready for the unexpected, I have had 4 engine failures and made 4 landings without damage, one quite recently at relatively low level on the climb out, the point is I am always expecting that the engine might fail so am constantly thinking of my options, so when it does happen you are not trying to think the solution, you know the solution and can act on it, I still think departing the aircraft before your passengers is very poor form, I have seen the cabin of the aircraft concerned and find it difficult to imagine not being able to see someone , unless you didn't take a proper look.

[jonesy]

Getting into an aircraft with a firm plan in mind of exiting well before it has landed and engine stopped is clearly a sign of madness anyway! If I was in that situation it would be easy to spot me by the large trail of brown stuff preceding me....
Tough decision to make there, and pretty easy to dissect it in an enquiry scenario well afterwards. I would have no doubt the pilot would always have the well-being of his passengers as a priority nonetheless.

[eieio]

Was it 2000 ft ABOVE SEA LEVEL OR ABOVE GROUND LEVEL ,TAUPO BEING IN EXCESS OF 1000FT ASL?

[conman]

Jul 30, 2017 19:44:40 GMT 12 eieio said:

Was it 2000 ft ABOVE SEA LEVEL OR ABOVE GROUND LEVEL ,TAUPO BEING IN EXCESS OF 1000FT ASL?

The official report states it was 2100ft above lake level when the engine failed

[conman]

Looks like the PAC750 has an engine out glide ratio of about 1:11 (from the flight manual) which from the engine failure height would give a solid 6km range

[flyinkiwi]

I felt the report is being overly harsh on the pilot. I wonder if had he realized that there were still jumpers aboard whether he would have survived if he stayed with it long enough for them to get clear prior to bailing out?

[conman]

I thought the report let the pilot off lightly, reading between the lines he probably panicked took a quick glance in the mirror and exited out the front door, potentially endangering his passengers remaining onboard, I still believe a forced landing was a real option based on the location of the engine failure, might have damaged the aircraft but should have been able to avoid injury, just because the fan isn't working doesn't mean the aircraft wont fly, the use of the parachute should be reserved for when you no longer have control of the aircraft.

[thomarse]

The pilot in command was confronted with the need to make an immediate and challenging decision.

He made it. Here endeth the matter.

[haughtney1]

Conman, I'd be interested to hear the basis for your argument and your justification for contradicting the report..with respect to the following.

4.4.7. Pilots are trained to put their aeroplanes into a gliding descent if they have to make a forced landing. The pilot, with minimal experience of the 750XL and parachuting operations, determined that he could not reach a suitable area on land. Although ditching in the lake was an option, he was aware that the flight manual warned that the aeroplane's ditching characteristics were unknown. Therefore he chose to abandon the aeroplane.

Which to me merely states his assessment was he couldn't make "suitable" landfall adequately in the time given, and made a reasonable decision based on the unknown part of the flight manual.
There is no mention anywhere made to suggest that the incorrect option was taken, the closest mention to any of this was the comment relating to remaining within gliding distance of land which is in many instances a grey area that is both difficult to quantify and practically impossible to enforce..hence the safety recommendation regarding flotation devices.
Perhaps you should present yourself to the TAIC? specifically to the lead investigator and present your opinion.

[camtech]

Now, now children.
Unless you were the pilot and can accurately recall the exact sequence of events, we should not presume to have the right answer. The pilot concerned had suddenly a lot of variables to consider and made his choice of his options. Lessons are to be learnt.