Jacko wrote:
simple, factory-recognised procedure.
Does that mean that an approved flight manual from the “factory” describes this operation? I know of lots of things that can be done in an aircraft which are not described in the flight manual – because the “factory” really does not want them done. I know of at least one manufacturer of a certified aircraft whose approved flight manual essentially states that “if it’s not approved in this flight manual, it’s prohibited.”, and I’m beginning to see the wisdom in that. Yeah, there are some “factories” of non certified aircraft whose websites show some pointless risk taking, ’cause I guess it boosts sales.
There are pilots who have established operational success doing things for which the aircraft was not originally intended, this is usually the result of a lot of skill, and acceptance of abnormal risk. An example is super steep climb aways at speed slower than Vx. If it’s the only way to get the job done, and you understand and can justify the risk, perhaps you’ve got to do it. In the mean time, people accept large risks that they may not even understand simply because they saw a video of someone else doing it.
If the pilot owner of an airplane, who has underwater egress training, a life jacket on, is flying solo, with either no hull insurance, or a fair understanding with their insurer as to what they think they’re being hull covered for, is not violating any regulations, and will cover any public expense of a rescue from a possible accident while taking needless risk wants to go water skiing in their plane, who am I to stop them? I do believe in allowing freedom of choice in life, if you’ve taken full responsibility for it. I have spent a lot of public, and my own money over 25 years as a fire fighter, searching for, and rescuing/recovering people who thought they could do something on the water. Privacy regulations prevent me going in to detail, but some of those events were aircraft accidents. One theme remains in my mind: If an airplane is being waterskiied, is it beyond gliding distance from shore? There are lifejacket requirements for such flights, is the pilot meeting them? Will the pilot’s underwater egress training be adequate that they can make use of a lifejacket not worn? I was wearing mine last summer, had egress training, and still nearly drowned.
It is obvious that some people’s ideas of aircraft operations cannot be changed, and they will attempt to justify pointless risk taking for some reason I can’t understand. The forgoing is not written for them. It has been written for all the other pilots out there who are still willing to consider what risks they should find to be acceptable, and why. It’s not just you and I reading this Jacko…. Pilots who want to know about what to consider if there is a fire in flight might be reading this!
People can and do “imagine” all sorts of rot, especially if they have insufficient practical experience or analytical competence to dispel prejudice against a simple, factory-recognised procedure.
But instead of imagining, lets do the math. There is no instance of a licensed pilot having an accident while hydroplaning on bushwheels. Zero. Nothing. Nil. None. Multiply that number by whatever factor you care to imagine, the product is still nought.
Jacko wrote:
yet some heroes are willing to land on floats with a student pilot manipulating the controls – perhaps believing that they are better (or luckier) than the hundreds of experienced pilots and instructors who have already trodden that path to fatal or serious injury.
So I was seriously injured giving amphibian training last summer, what’s your point?
Jacko wrote:
By contrast, the US database contains only one “water-skiing” accident,
I imagine that if wheel planes were flown onto the water as often as seaplanes, there’d be more than one reported accident.
There are likely to be far more student landings on floats than pilots waterskiing on wheels, so the difference in accidents is not surprising.
Aha, that must have been it. You can see how the floats could almost be mistaken for landing gear at a distance and a certain angle. Thank you RobertL18C!
Pilot_DAR wrote:
I have become a dissenter of pointless risk taking, and I’m not afraid to say so.
Quite so, but whereas perception of what is “pointless” is subjective, particularly in the context of off-airport operations, assessment of risk ought to be less so.
Floatplane FSI accidents are two a penny in the NTSB database, yet some heroes are willing to land on floats with a student pilot manipulating the controls – perhaps believing that they are better (or luckier) than the hundreds of experienced pilots and instructors who have already trodden that path to fatal or serious injury.
By contrast, the US database contains only one “water-skiing” accident, in which the (possibly well-lubricated) unlicensed “pilot” suffered no significant injury.
Well, actually, there was one other – in which some dope put his parking brake on for some water-skiing, and subsequently forgot to release it prior to landing at home. But then, what do you expect from a Husky driver? 
Ha, maybe, but I’m certain there was only one prop – not the high twin props you see on those planes? That would have made more sense.
Are you sure you had your glasses on and didn’t mistake them for Canadairs 
?
I was in Cannes recently and noticed a formation of small yellow SEPs (too distant to figure out what they were) flying lower and lower over the sea. To my amazement, each one touched down on the water very neatly and took off again, with a plume of water falling behind and below it. I assume it must be have been some kind of military exercise but the ease in which it was done was extraordinary – and baffling. Not just a one-off emergency procedure, but three perfectly executed touch and go’s on water in a simple aircraft. Any ideas?
