Avenger water landing at Cocoa Beach air show

[Feathered_IV]

Definitely something you don't see every day.  Looks like the pilot made a very good job of it all things considered.

 

 

[BraveSirRobin]

I’m surprised to see people in the water.  Every beach show that I’ve been to they move everyone out of the water.

[CUJO_1970]

Wonder if he could have set it on the beach anywhere? That saltwater might end her flying days for good.

[Birdman]

21 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

Wonder if he could have set it on the beach anywhere? That saltwater might end her flying days for good.

Saw a video from a different angle and the beach was packed with people.

[Monostripezebra]

Even the people in the water.. I am prettysure they were not visible to the pilot, that is dicey.

[Charlo-VR]

My best guess is it was part of an air show or planned flight that didn’t involve that beach’s airspace, then pilot realized something like loss of hydraulics that would prevent gear from dropping, so found nearby shallow water so he or she wouldn’t drown and plane would be recoverable

[ZachariasX]

Well, if he chose to land into a beach packed with people for the sake of the AC getting less damaged, I hope they never let this guy fly any aircraft again, ever. But I can't imagine anything other than sudden and severe loss of power as a reason to dump the aircraft where he just did. But just the idea of landing that close to a packed beach deserves thorough futher investigation.

[Bremspropeller]

Nicely performed ditching.

 

Certainly better than 80% of my landings in BoX...

[BraveSirRobin]

On 4/19/2021 at 5:12 AM, ZachariasX said:

Well, if he chose to land into a beach packed with people for the sake of the AC getting less damaged, I hope they never let this guy fly any aircraft again, ever. But I can't imagine anything other than sudden and severe loss of power as a reason to dump the aircraft where he just did. But just the idea of landing that close to a packed beach deserves thorough futher investigation.

 

It was an air show at the beach.  His engine failed.  The investigation into why he landed near all those people watching the air show will be very short.

[cardboard_killer]

Screw the people. They are our most renewable resource anyway. There are only so many TBMs out there!

[ZachariasX]

If there's one thing that really gets screwed it is the ability for passenger rides on warbirds. For good.

 

On 4/21/2021 at 4:23 AM, BraveSirRobin said:

It was an air show at the beach.  His engine failed.  The investigation into why he landed near all those people watching the air show will be very short.

 

There will be a lot coming together. FAA doesn't stop their investigation once they find that "the engine fails". Even in Florida they don't and everybody should be grateful for that. Some hear the music as well (although I would not endorse every single point he's making). The bottom line is very clear. Neglect and amateurish operation are killing warbirds by forcing regulation to look closely. And one thing you don't want is a close look on 80 year old machinery. They killed the Ju52 like that, they killed the B-17 like that, both with crew an passengers. Here they "just" recklessly endangered people by another case operational neglect, while probably turning the aircraft into a static display piece for good.

 

This is not a nice beach landing. It is the sky coming down on passenger rides in warbirds if there are not immediate and through changes in how those planes are operated.

[BraveSirRobin]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

If there's one thing that really gets screwed it is the ability for passenger rides on warbirds. For good.

 

 

There will be a lot coming together. FAA doesn't stop their investigation once they find that "the engine fails". Even in Florida they don't and everybody should be grateful for that. Some hear the music as well (although I would not endorse every single point he's making). The bottom line is very clear. Neglect and amateurish operation are killing warbirds by forcing regulation to look closely. And one thing you don't want is a close look on 80 year old machinery. They killed the Ju52 like that, they killed the B-17 like that, both with crew an passengers. Here they "just" recklessly endangered people by another case operational neglect, while probably turning the aircraft into a static display piece for good.

 

This is not a nice beach landing. It is the sky coming down on passenger rides in warbirds if there are not immediate and through changes in how those planes are operated.

None of that has anything to do with why he landed near a packed beach.   He “chose” to land there because his engine failed in the middle of an air show.  If you want to go off about why his engine failed, that’s a different issue and it’s not something that I was commenting on.

[Hoots]

5 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

None of that has anything to do with why he landed near a packed beach.   He “chose” to land there because his engine failed in the middle of an air show.  If you want to go off about why his engine failed, that’s a different issue and it’s not something that I was commenting on.

I'm not sure it's as simple as that. Seems like he knew his engine had been smoking for 20 minutes or so. This puts him firmly in the "he knew he shouldn't have put himself in that situation" and thus his decision to land where he did was started 20 minutes before he had to do so. So it does have something to do with what you were commenting on and I doubt the investigation will be short.

[Bremspropeller]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

If there's one thing that really gets screwed it is the ability for passenger rides on warbirds. For good.

 

 

There will be a lot coming together. FAA doesn't stop their investigation once they find that "the engine fails". Even in Florida they don't and everybody should be grateful for that. Some hear the music as well (although I would not endorse every single point he's making). The bottom line is very clear. Neglect and amateurish operation are killing warbirds by forcing regulation to look closely. And one thing you don't want is a close look on 80 year old machinery. They killed the Ju52 like that, they killed the B-17 like that, both with crew an passengers. Here they "just" recklessly endangered people by another case operational neglect, while probably turning the aircraft into a static display piece for good.

 

This is not a nice beach landing. It is the sky coming down on passenger rides in warbirds if there are not immediate and through changes in how those planes are operated.

 

His videos would be much better if he didn't bring an attitude with him.

I unsubscribed, mainly because I just couldn't understand his video-format. If you're "grass-roots", make sure you're not intellectually out-turning your audience.

 

 

[BraveSirRobin]

4 minutes ago, Hoots said:

I'm not sure it's as simple as that. Seems like he knew his engine had been smoking for 20 minutes or so. This puts him firmly in the "he knew he shouldn't have put himself in that situation" and thus his decision to land where he did was started 20 minutes before he had to do so. So it does have something to do with what you were commenting on and I doubt the investigation will be short.

If that was the case then he should have turned back to the airfield instead of flying at the show.  But that is also a different issue.

 

While they’re investigating they should also look into why there were people in the water.  I’ve been to a bunch of beach shows.  They usually keep people out of the water.

[Hoots]

1 minute ago, BraveSirRobin said:

If that was the case then he should have turned back to the airfield instead of flying at the show.  But that is also a different issue.

 

While they’re investigating they should also look into why there were people in the water.  I’ve been to a bunch of beach shows.  They usually keep people out of the water.

 

Surely it's all part of the same issue? As with many aviation incidents it's the "holes in the cheese" lining up that causes the incident.

[BraveSirRobin]

5 minutes ago, Hoots said:

 

Surely it's all part of the same issue? As with many aviation incidents it's the "holes in the cheese" lining up that causes the incident.

Not on April 18 when the original comments were made.   There was no mention of a smoking engine at that time.  He was just landing at the beach because that’s where the engine failed.  If he should not have gone to the show in the first place, that’s a different issue.

[Hoots]

4 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Not on April 18 when the original comments were made.   There was no mention of a smoking engine at that time.  He was just landing at the beach because that’s where the engine failed.  If he should not have gone to the show in the first place, that’s a different issue.

 

Fair point

[ZachariasX]

46 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

His videos would be much better if he didn't bring an attitude with him.

I unsubscribed, mainly because I just couldn't understand his video-format. If you're "grass-roots", make sure you're not intellectually out-turning your audience.

I agree with that, hence I said I wouldn't endorse everything he says. But if just a fraction of what he claims that was is also found by the FAA, then this is a big thing that is gonna have a lot of fallout on aviation enthusiasts.

 

38 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

If he should not have gone to the show in the first place, that’s a different issue.

Agree, fair point. Then again, one comes with the other. It unfortunately usually takes the accident to lift the rocks and see what's really underneath. And none of that looks good.