This is an excerpt from a report made to the Aviation Safety Reporting System. The narrative is written by the pilot, rather than FAA or NTSB officials. To maintain anonymity, many details, such as aircraft model or airport, are often scrubbed from the reports.
I filed a VFR flight plan as a private Part 91 pilot in my Lake Amphibian aircraft. I was given a cross border squawk code and was using it flying north towards my destination. My aircraft has a current IFR pitot static system certification and my instrument ticket is current.
On a VFR flight in suddenly deteriorating ceiling and visibility, I was flying low over the water en route to ZZZ1 in what is clearly Class G airspace. I was under some pressure to arrive at a certain time due to Customs wanting a landing within 15 minutes before or after the filed time of arrival. I have quite a bit of experience flying low over the water in Class G airspace, able to land in low visibility ceiling conditions.
While flying low over the water I suddenly and completely unexpectedly hit the water. I had already configurated the plane to a flaps down, mixture full rich, prop pitch flat attitude, for a water landing were it necessary to do so. But I did not anticipate the plane hitting the water and when it did so the let down on the water was extremely violent. The plane pitched up in the air and back down slamming onto the water extremely hard. The plane came to a stop and myself and my single passenger were in dense fog.
I climbed out of the cockpit with the plane on the water and stood on top of the cabin and looked at as much of the airframe as I could see to ascertain if there was any damage in the place as detectable in that portion of it visible floating above the surface of the water and saw none.
There being no visibility and ceiling sufficient to fly in we displacement taxied for some 20 minutes. Being on the surface of the water and too low to contact anyone by radio my passenger called [number] and informed them that we would report back airborne if we were able to find a ceiling and visibility adequate to fly in.
After 20 minutes of displacement taxiing on the water we got airborne and arrived a short time later in ZZZ1. I received priority going into the pattern because we did not get an up and locked light on the gear and wondered if we would get a down and locked light before landing the plane on the runway back to ZZZ and do a grass landing adjacent to the runway gear up rather than do that on the water or suffer a gear collapse landing on the runway.
When I cycled the gear down I got a down and locked signal on the panel and proceeded to land the plane on the runway without incident.
I flew home later that day and have not been able at this point to find damage to the airframe. It may be the case at the time of annual when I pull up the floorboards I will discover some bent frames, but that is to be determined when I perform the inspection.
The takeaway lesson in all of this is that despite not liking to set the plane down in saltwater because of a several hour clean up to prevent corrosion, it is obvious to me that I need to be willing to do so if encountering lowering ceilings and visibility as I did when the event occurred.
Primary Problem: Weather
ACN: 1839640
This is what hanger flying is all about 🥴
I would fly for miles close to the shore of the Tennessee River in sparsely populated areas. On one such venture I suddenly hit the water with a huge attention getting bounce. It turns out that I had flown into an area of glassy water and had eased down into it. No damage done. In my instructional days in the LA4-200, when we did a hard landing on water the instructor pilot would check the backbone beneath the propeller to if any contact had been made. During forty years of Lake flying that was my second encounter with glassy water. The first was a planned glassy water landing.
Glassy water is the most dangerous situation for a seaplane pilot and flying from ripples to glassy without the craft being in the proper attitude can be disastrous. The pilot in the article has made it worse by flying with poor to no forward visibility. This is not the first time he has done this as he has written about it in our Lake newsletter. I cringe whenever I see that author’s name for I know it will be another one of those stupid, hair-raising stories about flying in poor to no visibility. I just hope to God he doesn’t take a passenger with him when he eventually rolls himself into a little wet ball. He is doing nothing more than giving the Lake Amphibian a bad name. I personally have over 5000 hours in all models of Lakes and instruct in them and get extremely uncomfortable around glassy water. This pilot seems to revel in flying in those conditions. I suspect that he probably contacted a huge swell which is always found in large bodies of salt water, and fresh water. This catapulted him into the air and since he had no idea what attitude the aircraft was in, he impacted the water again in the wrong slightly nose-down attitude which created tremendous drag and slowed him down. Why there was no damage is amazing. It is a known fact that swells can not be detected from low altitudes, but from at least 800 feet and then it takes a while to read the pattern on the water. This pilot was inches off the water with no visibility.
Luckily for him the Lake is somewhat “forgiving” but it can still bite you if you do stupid things with it.
Dan Says: “Really amused by the Monday morning QBs. You weren’t there just read and learn, nobody cares what you would have done. They are alive with no obvious damage. Does anyone making negative comments have a sea rating?”
The answer to the above question is: I not only have a Single Engine Sea rating but I have owned a subject model Lake Amphibian for 28 years, and have about 2000 hours time in type. Unintentional contact with the water in this or any other any airplane (land or sea) can lead to loss of control and is a potential killer. The pilot and any passengers he had are lucky to be alive.
I have one and I’ve done the same stupid thing he’s describing.
I agree with all the points already made. If you read the ACN, there all sorts of other “lessons learned” we could uncover, which is why GA News prints these in the first place.
He states he’s on a “VFR Flight Plan” in Class G airspace. You can legally ‘scud run’ in Class G airspace under VFR…but not with 1/4 mile visibility. So he’s already violating Part 91; which he indicates he does routinely.
He could also have flown legally under IFR in Class G airspace, without an ATC clearance. Not a problem if you know the rules.
I’m betting his “100’ altitude” is what kept him just barely ‘clear of clouds’; these conditions, plus the fog he’s reporting, are what set him up for Strike 3, which I have no doubt, was glassy water conditions.
Weather was a contributing factor but the primary cause was continued VFR operation in IFR conditions caused by poor pilot decisions; and yes, I’ve had my SES rating since 1972, having taught in the LA-4 – my first paying aviation job.
Really amused by the Monday morning QBs. You weren’t there just read and learn, nobody cares what you would have done. They are alive with no obvious damage. Does anyone making negative comments have a sea rating?
That’s what this section is for, us Monday QBs. If you don’t like what is written here, read somewhere else, maybe with rose colored glasses.
I agree that 5he aircraft needs to be inspected by an A&P before further flight. A case can be made that just taking off again from the water with potential aircraft damage was reckless and dangerous.
Since the aircraft and the pilot are instrument current, why was he scud running that low in poor visibility conditions in the first place? He could have climbed and obtained an instrument clearance and avoided this whole incident.
Agree, CF. And if you suspect airframe damage, you investigate before further flight, as opposed to waiting untill the next annual
I’m not sure I’d call “weather” the primary factor here…