Going back to the Lake Hood Seaplane Base DHC-2 crash debate.
DHC-2 similar to accident aircraft. Photo by Phasmatisnox.
About a month ago, I published a couple of posts which were popular on the website about a floatplane crash in Anchorage, Alaska. It involved a De Havilland DHC-2 Beaver (N915RC) which crashed at Lake Hood Seaplane Base while on takeoff on June 7, 2009 and a witness recorded a video which became quite popular on YouTube. Earlier this month the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) released the factual report on this accident which kind of slipped by unnoticed. As I was looking at the NTSB reports that I have not featured today, I came across this one and thought it would be a great time to post about it.
According to the report, which is based on information provided by the pilot, he was departing Lake Hood Seaplane Base and headed towards Bulchitna Lake when the accident happened. The pilot reports that the takeoff run was normal, but that the encountered a right quartering tailwind gust that lifted up the plane’s right wing and float. This forced the plane to the left and towards the shoreline. The pilot says he was unable to correct this with rudder deviation and did not reduce power for fear of hitting the shoreline bank. He then lifted off, but one of the floats caught a fence, crashing the plane.
A strong debate has been going on with pilots that have seen the video as to whether there was actually a wind gust involved in this accident or if something else happened. If you watch the video, you’ll notice that the leaves of plants in the shoreline are barely moving, the seaplane base’s windsock is about as still as it can get, and there are no wind gust ripples on the water when the pilot claims a wind gust struck (I think that last one is the strongest indicator of the lack of gust evidence). This has raised doubts as to whether this is what happened or not. The investigators that covered this accident said that the reported winds three minutes after this accident were from the north/northeast at three knots with no recorded gusts. While no gusts were recorded, the wind direction would have coincided with a right quartering tailwind. While it is difficult to say if there was or wasn’t a sudden, freak gust without being there, I keep looking at the video over and over and not really seeing anything that indicates a wind gust affected the plane.
I ran a poll on the previous post on this accident and the results to date (April 30, 2010) are as follows:
54% of you thought that pilot James M. Eule was showboating for the camera.
29% of you say something else happened in this accident.
14% of you say the pilot used an incorrect wind correction.
3% of you say a sudden, crazy wind gust affected this plane.
Of course, I leave the polls active so this may change over time.
On the previous post, one of the readers who commented on the post (James Miller) made an interesting remark about how this could simply be a pilot who made a mistake by pulling up too early and being overtaken by the left turning tendencies that affect planes from the effect of the propeller’s rotating direction. While it is one of many possible theories as to what may have happened here, I feel it is one possibility that may be worth looking into. Like I’ve said before, I’m just having a hard time going for this wind gust concept (which does not mean that it is not possible somehow).
We may never know what made this airplane veer left on takeoff or whether the pilot’s words are true to what happened. The pilot of the aircraft had 21 hours of flight experience on the type of airplane. As I like to point out on these floatplane posts, I have zero hours of experience on floatplanes and there could be factors coming into play here that I am not aware of.
Want to stay informed of the latest posts? Velozia Air is on Twitter. Follow us @velozia.
Related Posts:
- Wind gust or something else? Original video post.
- Original accident post.
- Updated information on Minnesota floatplane accident.
Popularity: 24% [?]
The only movement of the windsock I see, is at .53 of 1:15. It does show more extension then in the previous 2 shots of the sock. But, it is not inflated–the trailing part of the sock is flattened, but sticking out more laterally. Could this have been from the prop wash and/ or air flowing off of the wings? I am thinking along these lines. I hate to see an airplane get wrecked.
I,for one, am not swayed from my earlier comments on this accident. Any pilot knows about “P” effect and the first thing that a pilot learns is how to correct for it. Especially in a high powered aircraft in take-off conditions. My feeling is that this pilot is grasping at any excuse that he can think of to hide the real cause of this accident. He quit flying the airplane while SHOWBOATING.
Bottome line is that if he is not pilot enough to maintain control of the airplane in the stated conditions then he should not have been at the controls in the first place…are there any Real Stick and Rudder Pilots left?
Ron,
All I know is that I don’t see any evidence of a wind gust anywhere on that video. And it seems strange to me that a wind so calm would produce a takeoff altering gust (I guess it IS possible, but would be very rare– still there really is no evidence on the water of a wind gust. If you go to a pool and look at the surface of the water, the slightest wind will produce ripples on it and if we were talking a wind strong enough to alter a takeoff there would definitely be ripples. So, I can’t actually say this guy was showboating because I wasn’t there (although there is a strong possibility that this was going on). At one point while researching this article, I came across a comment on a website which stated that the pilot in this accident had crashed a Cessna (I think a 150 or 190) sometime in the past few years and that he may have been doing reckless flying then. I was never able to find a good, official source for exactly what may have happened so that I could establish a history of reckless flying. Therefore, I let it go… I don’t like accusing anyone of anything here without having something to back it up with. So while the possibility of showboating is definitely present in this accident, I can’t back it up officially so I have to examine all the other possibilities.
On why I mention the left turning tendency issue as a possibility, even though pilots are trained on that from, basically, day 1 is because I see this being an official issue in more than a few runway accidents. So I brought it up as one of many possibilities.
Is showboating a strong possibility? Yes, the aircraft turned directly towards the camera before all this happened. Could be just coincidence, though.
Laketahope,
Its a difficult one to call since there is almost no evidence of wind. Even if the sock moves, its still moving so slowly that I have problems qualifying it as a gust.
What do we know about his W&B and the density altitude that day. It appears that he had a protracted takeoff run and then failed to get out of ground effect.
Gene
Gene,
I don’t know any of the detailed information relating to the weight and balance, but the information originally available for this accident said that the pilot was accompanied by three family members, two dogs, and an unknown amount of gear. The useful load for the DHC-2 is over 2,000 lbs. Density Altitude that day at Lake Hood was about 610 feet (field elevation is 71 feet.).
This guy screwed up – pure and simple. My quals are: ATP/CFII/Multi/Land/SEA & A&P Mechanic with well over 6,000 hours to date – about 1,500+ in DeHavilland DHC-2 Beavers – 98% of that time is float time. There was NO wind problem here. The plane was either (1) seriously overloaded AFT of the aft center-of-gravity (“CG”) limits (you’lll notice that he NEVER got the plane out of the “plow” position – as opposed to the “step” position for correct takeoff float positioning); (2) and/or he was drunk or intoxicated, or (3) he was so inexperienced at float flying he simply didn’t know what he was doing. (4) Another factor is the fact that the P&W R-985 Wasp Jr. engine did not “appear” to sound like it was anywhere near it’s normal 450hp takeoff power setting – it sounded like it was set at a somewhat lower-than-normal power setting. (5) The elevators did not appear (if you zoom in on the video – converted to WMV format) to have ever been forced down during the takeoff attempt – reinforcing my belief that this guy didn’t know what he was doing. This “APPEARS” to be a case of “too much $$$ & not enough brains…”. I hope the FAA fries this guy – there was NO excuse for this to have happened. And to blame it on “wind gusts”… – In my opinion, this pilot was just plain flat stupid…
Hi,
I am not sure if your google maps arrow is intended to point out the exact location of the crash or otherwise. If it is, then I think it is incorrect. I think the crash happened here.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=4800+Spenard+Road+Anchorage,+AK+USA+99517-3236&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=11.957247,30.058594&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=4800+Spenard+Rd,+Anchorage,+Alaska+99517,+United+States&ll=61.178163,-149.957746&spn=0.000595,0.001835&z=19
Here is a shot of the millenium hotel.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/31242357@N07/3594626914/in/set-72157619417794994/
Millennium Alaskan Hotel Anchorage
4800 Spenard Road
Anchorage, AK
USA 99517-3236
The take off run can be seen in the video (choose HD)
to begin near the hotel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVwlodvWh7w
If you look at the very start of the video you can see the
hotel bulidings. In particular at the very left hand edge of the frame the same chimney is visible as is in the center of the flickr shot.
#########
At one time there was an ATC recording here
http://www.liveatc.net/forums/atcaviation-audio-clips/de-havilland-beaver-plane-crash-at-lake-hood-june-7-2009-video-atc/
Link labeled – N915RC_2.mp3
I can’t see it now but I made notes -
“Clear for takeoff WEST – wind 330 at 5″
West seems to be what they call that “runway”.
##########
I think the aircraft may never quite have got lined up with the “runway” and simply missed it. There appears to have been two or three times the run available than he actually used before veering off into the greenery.
He appears to have been using runway “West” “W”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LHD.jpg
I know nothing about floatplanes and precious little about any piloting but I thought it odd that the nose was held so high right from the start of the run. The actual runway is like a canal and is quite narrow. The pilot did not seem to make any special effort to line up carefully. Total width between the banks 180 ft. Wonder if the ntsb ever saw the video?
Anyway, no one damaged, so all’s well than ends well – ish.
James,
Thanks for all the info. The Google Maps display on this post just indicates the location of Lake Hood Seaplane Base. If you click on the link “Original Post” in the article you should get the location of the crash in that post.
I don’t know if it was so much that he didn’t line up with the runway, as something that went wrong in the end towards liftoff, though. I’ll have to look at the video, though, and check on the runway alignment issue as I haven’t really looked at that closely. It did look to me like he was aligned, however, on first impression.
Again, thanks for all the info!
Fernando
Here’s this pilot’s prior accident, which Fernando alluded to.
Oops, here….
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ANC08LA029&rpt=fi
Carlton,
Thanks for the link to the accident.
As a PP trying to buy an airplane c172-82 (with little hope remaining, a 70′s c172 in Venezuela costs about 80K) I feel so sad when beautiful planes like this are lost due to human error, as this seems to be the case. If I had the chance to own an airplane before I loose my license I would be very careful to avoid accidents in every phase of flight, I would stick to performance charts, checklists and would excel at situational awareness… God I want a plane so badly!
Ricardo,
I know its a shame when these planes are lost due to pilot error, but its not like all pilot error is intentional. Most of it happens unexpectedly (although it can be avoided through adequate training and policies — such as using a paper checklist rather than memory). Unfortunately, some accidents do happen when the pilot was deliberately risking too much and on those you just wonder why a beautiful plane had to be lost…
When you have an accident with a DHC2 (Beaver), companies like Kenmore will have these incredibly durable and repairable planes back in the air in beter condition than ever. You can’t kill a beaver it seems. That what makes them so special.
Ricardo, Can you not buy a 172 in another area like the US or Canada? Is it too difficult to import one? I see C172′s ranging from $30,000 to $60 for a ’70′s example.
Cheers
Brian,
It will be interesting to follow up on this aircraft’s to see what future it has. It will probably fly again, if it has not already. A quick FAA records check shows that it may indeed do so, except with a different N-number.