Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:07 pm
Thanks.
I was having a hard time picturing where it fit in. Its about where I thought but wasn't really sure.
I was having a hard time picturing where it fit in. Its about where I thought but wasn't really sure.
Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:16 pm
krlang wrote:And, dont forget the first reports of survivors on the beach.
...Sorry bout that. I was on a 15 minute chili-dog and WIX-fix break when
I flipped on the news to get a fix there too, to find story was breaking. I
expanded my break to see what the "talking heads" thought they knew
and waited for some possible video. Nothing had been reported on WIX
yet, so I passed it on. Before I left for work CNN had reported the witness
accounts of the wing seperation, but in the hurry I forgot to add
that in. Also, I know what a G-73T is but in the hurry I passed it on in their
words. The idea was to give a Heads-Up and let time sort out the details.
I have no delusions about what the Press is saying at a given point....a lot
of it revolves around them giving their "vocal cords" something to do
while they wait for the facts...or their version..to show-up to synchronize
with the mouth! Again, just giving a H-U to see what my betters came up
with..
Marine Air is right about the piston-engine Mallard being a bit slow.
As I understand it Grumman knew it would be when they hung the 1340's
on it, but it was what was available at the time. Probably had plans to
upgrade later...but the design wasn't successful in Sales. Still, the PT-6
made a good Grumman a great one and I'm glad they've been with us all
these years. The Mallard is a beauty in any form and I look forward to
seeing another in real-life one day as well as a ride.
Ollie...True we should let the NTSB do their job...that's why we speculate
here. We don't call them, the Grumman Iron Works for nothing, so when
one comes apart it's a major noteworhty event! Discussion educates us.
I personally was thinking of the possiblity of the PT-6 chucking a turbine
blade an severing a fuel-line to initiate the fire..but I'll keep that to myself.
Hope's it's not a spar-crack missed on inspection. Chalks has a pretty
good reputation in maintaining their machines from what I've heard, even
with their new ownership.
Does anyone know if the G-73T has fuel tanks in the center section of the
wing, or are they outboard of the turbines as suggested in photos I've
seen of them refueling? Who has the Type Certificate on the G-73T or
the G-111 Albatross, for that matter?
Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:17 pm
Cruise speed is 170 Knts. I watch the pilots fly it when I flew them to paradise island.. Pretty slow by modern standards. When I was flying for Ambassador airways PBA Lost a Cessna 402 that crashed the same way. The wing fell off and they went right in. PBA the airlines went right in soon after.
Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:00 pm
A Couple of riders if I may:
Overall a good sketch on the type, but the final remark is not really accurate or a fair comment on the type's survival rate. The Mallard was built in small numbers, a disproportionately large number of which survive, and for an aircraft of that era, interestingly most survivors are still in use. (To put that in perspective it would be difficult to find a comparable type of that era, but even DC-3 or Fokker Friendships don't compare as to survivors/production, especially if you consider they are not a marine type - with it's tougher environment and 'runways'. I think the Martin Mars would be about the only thing with a small production run and high survival numbers ratio! Albatross (a military design) and the PBY certainly can't compare. I'm sorry I can't provide a survivors listing - my sources have let me down, but I can account for aprox 15 - 20 around, mostly active in the last few years. That's a third to half of a production run half a century ago! Paspaley Pearls (Pearl Aviation) in Broome, Australia use a couple, there's a few in US private hands, and I've seen five under refurbishment at Sidney Airport, Vancouver Island, in addition to Chalks' (once 'Pan Am Air Bridge') fleet.
It's misleading to say that the Mallard couldn't compete with the Albatross and wasn't used by the military, as that wasn't the idea anyway. It was always, only, intended as a civil feederliner - the job it did, and in some places still does in fact. Sure, Grumman would've taken military sales, but that wasn't the idea. It's often forgotten that the Goose was originally designed for a group of rich New Yorkers who needed something to get out of town for fishing trips and back in the 30s. The Mallard, was, to some extent a postwar version of the Goose. The Albatross was a design for military use - so it was a different aircraft.
This accident is tragic on so many levels, and I'd expect ignorant and prejudiced attitudes from the mainstream media, but there's a lack of perspective from some of us here too.
The Mallard has an excellent safety record; it's a highly seaworthy and air-worthy aircraft, tough as you'd expect and effective. How fast it goes is, IMHO, almost completely irrelevant. The point is that Mallards have been used all over the world (literally) from the Arctic region to the Antarctic with very few serious accidents right up to the present day. (Sorry I can't provide stats for this either - would appreciate any input - but before I get hung for talking in general terms, when was the last Mallard accident you heard of?)
Grumman are, arguably, the best amphibian builders in history with their suite of types, and just because they aren't headline catchers they get overlooked. Grumman (like many other postwar aircraft builders) were caught out by the lack of a postwar marine aircraft or amphibian market everyone expected; no one factored in all those wartime runways everywhere. That knocked the original sales down, but Mallards have filled the (smaller) niche they were designed for ever since. What replaces a DC-3? Another DC-3. What replaces a Mallard? A turbo Mallard - and nothing else has ever been able to fill that task.
When did you last fly in a 1940s design in regular revenue-earning use? And if you did, it certainly wasn't an amphibian or the only type in its class.
Chalks, too, has a safety record (yes, even now) that many other airlines would be hard pushed to match. Certainly up to before this accident their passenger safety record was what it should be and a lot better than a number of national flag carriers. Leaving aside their long history, just their Mallard safety record was better than say a 737, 747 or well, any other airliner type you can think of. Yet everyone is acting like it was inevitable.
This if a horrendous blow for an airline that has up to now had an excellent record and this terrible accident may take them down, which would be unjust. Ill informed speculation over saltwater corrosion helps no-one; Chalks were aware of what they were doing, and were mandated to take agreed steps. Something went wrong, but if the FAA and Chalks didn't know it was coming, we certainly aren't going to work it out here.
I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss it, nor that people are unthinking, but Chalks have a track record in this arena. They knew, except for two tragic errors, what they were doing. Few other aviation organisations can say as much.
The aircraft in question is a Frake's G-73T Turbine Mallard remanufactured in Texas probably in the 1970's or 1980's. It started life in the post war 1940's as a Grumman G-73 with P&W R-1340's of 600 hp. with three bladed Hamilton Standard props. (Similar to DHC Otter) There were only about 59 built and many of those are long gone due to accidents, corrosion, hurricanes, etc.
Overall a good sketch on the type, but the final remark is not really accurate or a fair comment on the type's survival rate. The Mallard was built in small numbers, a disproportionately large number of which survive, and for an aircraft of that era, interestingly most survivors are still in use. (To put that in perspective it would be difficult to find a comparable type of that era, but even DC-3 or Fokker Friendships don't compare as to survivors/production, especially if you consider they are not a marine type - with it's tougher environment and 'runways'. I think the Martin Mars would be about the only thing with a small production run and high survival numbers ratio! Albatross (a military design) and the PBY certainly can't compare. I'm sorry I can't provide a survivors listing - my sources have let me down, but I can account for aprox 15 - 20 around, mostly active in the last few years. That's a third to half of a production run half a century ago! Paspaley Pearls (Pearl Aviation) in Broome, Australia use a couple, there's a few in US private hands, and I've seen five under refurbishment at Sidney Airport, Vancouver Island, in addition to Chalks' (once 'Pan Am Air Bridge') fleet.
It was never used by the military and was eclipsed by the HU-16 Albatross. It's bigger than the Goose and smaller than an Albatross. Chalks tried the Albatross briefly in the 1980's but operating costs were too high.
It's misleading to say that the Mallard couldn't compete with the Albatross and wasn't used by the military, as that wasn't the idea anyway. It was always, only, intended as a civil feederliner - the job it did, and in some places still does in fact. Sure, Grumman would've taken military sales, but that wasn't the idea. It's often forgotten that the Goose was originally designed for a group of rich New Yorkers who needed something to get out of town for fishing trips and back in the 30s. The Mallard, was, to some extent a postwar version of the Goose. The Albatross was a design for military use - so it was a different aircraft.
This accident is tragic on so many levels, and I'd expect ignorant and prejudiced attitudes from the mainstream media, but there's a lack of perspective from some of us here too.
The Mallard has an excellent safety record; it's a highly seaworthy and air-worthy aircraft, tough as you'd expect and effective. How fast it goes is, IMHO, almost completely irrelevant. The point is that Mallards have been used all over the world (literally) from the Arctic region to the Antarctic with very few serious accidents right up to the present day. (Sorry I can't provide stats for this either - would appreciate any input - but before I get hung for talking in general terms, when was the last Mallard accident you heard of?)
Grumman are, arguably, the best amphibian builders in history with their suite of types, and just because they aren't headline catchers they get overlooked. Grumman (like many other postwar aircraft builders) were caught out by the lack of a postwar marine aircraft or amphibian market everyone expected; no one factored in all those wartime runways everywhere. That knocked the original sales down, but Mallards have filled the (smaller) niche they were designed for ever since. What replaces a DC-3? Another DC-3. What replaces a Mallard? A turbo Mallard - and nothing else has ever been able to fill that task.
When did you last fly in a 1940s design in regular revenue-earning use? And if you did, it certainly wasn't an amphibian or the only type in its class.
Chalks, too, has a safety record (yes, even now) that many other airlines would be hard pushed to match. Certainly up to before this accident their passenger safety record was what it should be and a lot better than a number of national flag carriers. Leaving aside their long history, just their Mallard safety record was better than say a 737, 747 or well, any other airliner type you can think of. Yet everyone is acting like it was inevitable.
This if a horrendous blow for an airline that has up to now had an excellent record and this terrible accident may take them down, which would be unjust. Ill informed speculation over saltwater corrosion helps no-one; Chalks were aware of what they were doing, and were mandated to take agreed steps. Something went wrong, but if the FAA and Chalks didn't know it was coming, we certainly aren't going to work it out here.
I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss it, nor that people are unthinking, but Chalks have a track record in this arena. They knew, except for two tragic errors, what they were doing. Few other aviation organisations can say as much.
Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:18 pm
SWAviator (undated, but I'm presuming recent) lists 30 on the US register. With a couple in Aus and (guessing, here) a couple elsewhere, that's a phenomenal survival rate. Of 59 built, say 30 - 35 survivors.
The FAA Database gives 29 G-73s and two G-73Ts.
The FAA Database gives 29 G-73s and two G-73Ts.
Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:12 pm
"The Mallard has an excellent safety record; it's a highly seaworthy and air-worthy aircraft, tough as you'd expect and effective."
When I was down in the Keys they would run for the Beach after they land because the hulls leak and this very problem contributed to a crash in the 90's from the tortugas.
"Ill informed speculation over saltwater corrosion helps no-one; Chalks were aware of what they were doing, and were mandated to take agreed steps."
The salt eats everything up in Florida including airplanes. Corrosion is a big issue there that has ended the life of many aircraft down there. Also I fworked A/C maintenance Ft Lauderdale and MiA " Corrosion Ally " for a cargo airline and I know alot of guys working in the aircraft maintenance weren't paid alot. AKA, You get what you pay for
When I was down in the Keys they would run for the Beach after they land because the hulls leak and this very problem contributed to a crash in the 90's from the tortugas.
"Ill informed speculation over saltwater corrosion helps no-one; Chalks were aware of what they were doing, and were mandated to take agreed steps."
The salt eats everything up in Florida including airplanes. Corrosion is a big issue there that has ended the life of many aircraft down there. Also I fworked A/C maintenance Ft Lauderdale and MiA " Corrosion Ally " for a cargo airline and I know alot of guys working in the aircraft maintenance weren't paid alot. AKA, You get what you pay for
Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:38 pm
Hi BR,
Thanks for the input. Do you have or can tie down details of the crash you allude to? All seaplanes leak to some degree. In the present circs, we don't want to speculate here about what level is unaceptable.
As regards your second point, fair comment, and you talk from first-hand experience. However that doesn't change the fact that Chalks were mandated to take steps to protect their aircraft. They did. Something (possibly corrosion, possibly something else) caused the aircraft to fail in a catestrophic manner that we don't have enough details to be sure about. Therefore something unexpected or hidden caught these poor people out.
It's certain that if Chalks had seen the problem coming they would have taken steps to prevent this accident.
Generalisations on corrosion in the area and wages set the scene, but aren't answers to the specific - that's the NSTB's call.
If you were running an operation would you appreciate comments that can be read as their aircraft are all corroded and their wrenches are badly paid and therefore incompetent? It might be generally true, but unless it's specifically correct it's not helpful and heading towards libel.
I appreciate your posts, BW, but it would probably help if we waited for a bit more hard data before diagnosing the answer.
Best wishes,
Thanks for the input. Do you have or can tie down details of the crash you allude to? All seaplanes leak to some degree. In the present circs, we don't want to speculate here about what level is unaceptable.
As regards your second point, fair comment, and you talk from first-hand experience. However that doesn't change the fact that Chalks were mandated to take steps to protect their aircraft. They did. Something (possibly corrosion, possibly something else) caused the aircraft to fail in a catestrophic manner that we don't have enough details to be sure about. Therefore something unexpected or hidden caught these poor people out.
It's certain that if Chalks had seen the problem coming they would have taken steps to prevent this accident.
Generalisations on corrosion in the area and wages set the scene, but aren't answers to the specific - that's the NSTB's call.
If you were running an operation would you appreciate comments that can be read as their aircraft are all corroded and their wrenches are badly paid and therefore incompetent? It might be generally true, but unless it's specifically correct it's not helpful and heading towards libel.
I appreciate your posts, BW, but it would probably help if we waited for a bit more hard data before diagnosing the answer.
Best wishes,
Thu Dec 22, 2005 7:53 am
All I can say is that I been there done that and made a live doing corrosion control and fabrication of A/C parts. I have had to go over to their hanger to bum hardware. Seen their planes torn apart and talked to their mechs. I have plenty of grounds to speak on the subject. like it or not.
Post Subject
Thu Dec 22, 2005 8:20 am
Hi All
I remember an accident that happened not that long ago. It involved a highly skilled and well respected organisation. Their aircraft was considered the best in the world and it was backed up by the highest maintenance standards applied to any commercial airliner anywhere. Sadly one crashed and speculation, rumour and falsehoods ran wild. eventually it was discovered that something as simple as a piece of discarded debri on a runway was the most likely candidate for the horrific accident which killed many innocent lives.
I'm all for free speech and freedom to express opinions but I also respect the professionalism of the people tasked with investigating such incidents.
Lets wait and see what comes out of the inquiry and then we can have some more debate on the subject.
Viva La Concorde!
Digger
I remember an accident that happened not that long ago. It involved a highly skilled and well respected organisation. Their aircraft was considered the best in the world and it was backed up by the highest maintenance standards applied to any commercial airliner anywhere. Sadly one crashed and speculation, rumour and falsehoods ran wild. eventually it was discovered that something as simple as a piece of discarded debri on a runway was the most likely candidate for the horrific accident which killed many innocent lives.
I'm all for free speech and freedom to express opinions but I also respect the professionalism of the people tasked with investigating such incidents.
Lets wait and see what comes out of the inquiry and then we can have some more debate on the subject.
Viva La Concorde!
Digger
Re: Post Subject
Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:36 am
Digger wrote:Hi All
I
I'm all for free speech and freedom to express opinions but I also respect the professionalism of the people tasked with investigating such incidents.
Lets wait and see what comes out of the inquiry and then we can have some more debate on the subject.
Digger
I wasn't aware that "most" the info on
this board was worth anything more than entertainment value?.
Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:01 pm
Hello Everybody,
On my previous post, I didn't mean to imply the Mallard couldn't compete with the Albatross. Actually, the Mallard was conceived as a civilian aircraft and the reason, i'm sure , that there weren't more built is only because of the thousands of PBY's, Mariners, Sunderlands, Goose', Ducks, etc., etc., that you could buy new or almost new for pennies on the dollar, surplus. The Mallard had several famous buyers, including the Queen of England, Tenn. Valley Authority (TVA), and some major oil companies.
In the 1980's, it was the Albatross that couldn't compete with the Mallard , not the other way around. This is on an operating costs and profitability per seat comparison. It's a lot cheaper per seat to operate than the HU-16 or the PBY.
As far as the military, the Mallard is supposed to be light and manueverable because it wasn't burdened with all the design requirements and mission capabilities the military typically specifies.
The Albatross is also a great airplane. It can handle really rough water and easier and more comfortable to fly than many other types. They are just expensive to operate, that's all.
On my previous post, I didn't mean to imply the Mallard couldn't compete with the Albatross. Actually, the Mallard was conceived as a civilian aircraft and the reason, i'm sure , that there weren't more built is only because of the thousands of PBY's, Mariners, Sunderlands, Goose', Ducks, etc., etc., that you could buy new or almost new for pennies on the dollar, surplus. The Mallard had several famous buyers, including the Queen of England, Tenn. Valley Authority (TVA), and some major oil companies.
In the 1980's, it was the Albatross that couldn't compete with the Mallard , not the other way around. This is on an operating costs and profitability per seat comparison. It's a lot cheaper per seat to operate than the HU-16 or the PBY.
As far as the military, the Mallard is supposed to be light and manueverable because it wasn't burdened with all the design requirements and mission capabilities the military typically specifies.
The Albatross is also a great airplane. It can handle really rough water and easier and more comfortable to fly than many other types. They are just expensive to operate, that's all.
saltwater soaked innards
Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:22 pm
How much actual Continouous saltwater exposure can the aluminium and other metals in an old but refurbed airframe withstand.and beating itself up by bouncing in the surf?its got to be rather brutal dont it? just wunnderin Tim 
Thu Dec 22, 2005 9:36 pm
Heres a few other interesting, "Factual" reports on the type of A/C
MIA02WA063
On February 16, 2002 about 1310 eastern standard time, a Grumman G-73T, N103FB, operated by Chalk's Ocean Airlines, flight 509, as a 14 CFR Part 121 scheduled flight, impacted with the water while landing at Paradise Island, Bahamas. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time. A VFR flight plan was filed. The airplane was substantially damaged. The flight crew of two and four passengers reported no injuries. The flight had originated from Fort Lauderdale International Airport, Florida at 1200.
According to the Captain's report, the first officer (FO) was at the controls at the time of the accident. During the approach the captain observed boat traffic along with waves in the landing area. The FO descended to just above the water, and started to "skip across [the water]..…reduced power and called for flaps up in a confused sea condition." The captain immediately responded by saying, "it's really rough here," and he instructed the FO to add power. The airplane landed in the water and became airborne again due to " ..…the sea condition..…flaps being at 30 degrees and being at partial engine power." The captain said that the "aircraft left the water in a nose high attitude and left wing low." The airplane re-contacted the water with the left float and left side the fuselage coming down first. After passing all the boat waves, the captain noticed that the "..…left float had been damaged and bent inwards towards the fuselage." The captain stated, "..…I should have exercised my pilot-in-command authority and should have either gone around or landed in calmer water."
The investigation is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Civil Aviation, Nassau, Bahamas.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIA01IA144
On May 22, 2001, at about 1746 eastern daylight time, a Grumman G-73, N142PA, registered to Seaplane Leasing II LLC, operated by Flying Boat Inc, doing business as Chalks International Airlines flight 512, as a 14 CFR Part 121 scheduled international passenger flight, experienced a collapse of the right main landing gear while taxiing to the parking ramp. The airline transport pilot-in-command, commercial pilot copilot, and 17 passengers reported no injuries. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and a VFR flight plan was filed. The airplane sustained minor damage. The flight originated from Paradise Island, Bahamas, about 51 minutes before the incident.
Initial examination of the airplane by the FAA revealed the right main landing gear had separated. Two small preexisting cracks and corrosion was found in the vicinity of the failure location.
The Director of Maintenance for Chalks International stated that four landing gear parts were sent to Q.C. Labs for magnaflux and x-ray. The landing gear parts were picked up and brought back to the hangar. The landing gears were prepped, primed, painted, and the landing gear was installed on the incident airplane. On May 22, 2001, N142PA right main landing gear failed while taxiing to the terminal. A review of paperwork from Q.C. Labs revealed that two landing gear parts were rejected because of cracks. A red tag was also attached to the report. " At this time I realized that I had tagged an unserviceable part serviceable by mistake."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTSB Identification: MIA94FA097 .
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Friday, March 18, 1994 in KEY WEST, FL
Probable Cause Approval Date: 6/1/1995
Aircraft: GRUMMAN G-73T, registration: N150FB
Injuries: 2 Fatal.
THE FLIGHTCREW HAD COMPLETED A 14 CFR PART 135 CHARTER FLIGHT AND HAD LANDED IN THE HARBOR AT KEY WEST, FLORIDA. THEY HAD MOORED THE SEAPLANE AND DEPARTED. ABOUT AN HOUR LATER, THEY REBOARDED THE SEAPLANE TO FLY IT TO AN AIRPORT FOR REFUELING, THEN TO RETURN TO THE HARBOR TO BOARD THE PASSENGERS. DURING TAKEOFF, THE SEAPLANE WAS OBSERVED TO PITCH NOSE UP, ROLL LEFT, AND CRASH NOSE DOWN IN THE HARBOR. DUE TO THE DAMAGE DONE BY TIDAL FLOW AND RECOVERY ATTEMPTS, THE EXACT CONDITION OF THE AFT BILGE DRAIN PLUGS WAS UNKNOWN. DURING A CHECK OF THE CVR RECORDING, THE CREW WAS NOT HEARD TO CALL OUT THE BILGE PUMPS DURING THE BEFORE-TAKEOFF CHECKLIST. AFTER LIFT-OFF, BOTH PILOTS MADE COMMENTS ABOUT KEEPING THE NOSE DOWN DUE TO WATER IN THE AFT PORTION OF THE AIRCRAFT.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
FAILURE OF THE PILOT-IN-COMMAND TO ASSURE THE BILGES WERE ADEQUATELY PUMPED FREE OF WATER (ADEQUATELY PREFLIGHTED), WHICH RESULTED IN THE AFT CENTER OF GRAVITY LIMIT TO BE EXCEEDED, AND FAILURE OF THE AIRCREW TO FOLLOW THE CHECKLIST. A FACTOR RELATED TO THE ACCIDENT WAS: THE WATER LEAK.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTSB Identification: MIA76OM002
14 CFR Part 135 Scheduled operation of CHALKS INTERNA
Event occurred Saturday, July 12, 1975 in BIMINI, Bahamas
Aircraft: GRUMMAN G-73, registration: N3010
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FILE DATE LOCATION AIRCRAFT DATA INJURIES FLIGHT PILOT DATA F S M/N PURPOSE----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6-0065 75/7/12 BIMINI,BAHAMAS GRUMMAN G-73 CR- 0 0 2 COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL, AGE 34, 2350 TIME - 1600 N3010 PX- 0 0 13 COMMUTER AIR CARRIER TOTAL HOURS, 1844 IN DAMAGE-SUBSTANTIAL OT- 0 0 0 AIR TAXI-PASSG S-I TYPE, INSTRUMENT RATED. NAME OF AIRPORT - BIMINI BAY DEPARTURE POINT INTENDED DESTINATION BIMINI,BAHAMAS MIAMI,FL TYPE OF ACCIDENT PHASE OF OPERATION GROUND-WATER LOOP-SWERVE TAXI: TO TAKEOFF COLLIDED WITH: OBJECT TAXI: TO TAKEOFF REMARKS- INVESTIGATION UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE GOVT OF BAHAMA.
Once Again: I hope this incident, that CNN is reporting as having many cracks in the wing spar, creates a procedure to prevent it from happening again. I say this just after learning that we just took in our first T-34 annual.
BTW, I wasnt singleing out the Survivors posting, I heard it too!
MIA02WA063
On February 16, 2002 about 1310 eastern standard time, a Grumman G-73T, N103FB, operated by Chalk's Ocean Airlines, flight 509, as a 14 CFR Part 121 scheduled flight, impacted with the water while landing at Paradise Island, Bahamas. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time. A VFR flight plan was filed. The airplane was substantially damaged. The flight crew of two and four passengers reported no injuries. The flight had originated from Fort Lauderdale International Airport, Florida at 1200.
According to the Captain's report, the first officer (FO) was at the controls at the time of the accident. During the approach the captain observed boat traffic along with waves in the landing area. The FO descended to just above the water, and started to "skip across [the water]..…reduced power and called for flaps up in a confused sea condition." The captain immediately responded by saying, "it's really rough here," and he instructed the FO to add power. The airplane landed in the water and became airborne again due to " ..…the sea condition..…flaps being at 30 degrees and being at partial engine power." The captain said that the "aircraft left the water in a nose high attitude and left wing low." The airplane re-contacted the water with the left float and left side the fuselage coming down first. After passing all the boat waves, the captain noticed that the "..…left float had been damaged and bent inwards towards the fuselage." The captain stated, "..…I should have exercised my pilot-in-command authority and should have either gone around or landed in calmer water."
The investigation is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Civil Aviation, Nassau, Bahamas.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIA01IA144
On May 22, 2001, at about 1746 eastern daylight time, a Grumman G-73, N142PA, registered to Seaplane Leasing II LLC, operated by Flying Boat Inc, doing business as Chalks International Airlines flight 512, as a 14 CFR Part 121 scheduled international passenger flight, experienced a collapse of the right main landing gear while taxiing to the parking ramp. The airline transport pilot-in-command, commercial pilot copilot, and 17 passengers reported no injuries. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and a VFR flight plan was filed. The airplane sustained minor damage. The flight originated from Paradise Island, Bahamas, about 51 minutes before the incident.
Initial examination of the airplane by the FAA revealed the right main landing gear had separated. Two small preexisting cracks and corrosion was found in the vicinity of the failure location.
The Director of Maintenance for Chalks International stated that four landing gear parts were sent to Q.C. Labs for magnaflux and x-ray. The landing gear parts were picked up and brought back to the hangar. The landing gears were prepped, primed, painted, and the landing gear was installed on the incident airplane. On May 22, 2001, N142PA right main landing gear failed while taxiing to the terminal. A review of paperwork from Q.C. Labs revealed that two landing gear parts were rejected because of cracks. A red tag was also attached to the report. " At this time I realized that I had tagged an unserviceable part serviceable by mistake."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTSB Identification: MIA94FA097 .
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Friday, March 18, 1994 in KEY WEST, FL
Probable Cause Approval Date: 6/1/1995
Aircraft: GRUMMAN G-73T, registration: N150FB
Injuries: 2 Fatal.
THE FLIGHTCREW HAD COMPLETED A 14 CFR PART 135 CHARTER FLIGHT AND HAD LANDED IN THE HARBOR AT KEY WEST, FLORIDA. THEY HAD MOORED THE SEAPLANE AND DEPARTED. ABOUT AN HOUR LATER, THEY REBOARDED THE SEAPLANE TO FLY IT TO AN AIRPORT FOR REFUELING, THEN TO RETURN TO THE HARBOR TO BOARD THE PASSENGERS. DURING TAKEOFF, THE SEAPLANE WAS OBSERVED TO PITCH NOSE UP, ROLL LEFT, AND CRASH NOSE DOWN IN THE HARBOR. DUE TO THE DAMAGE DONE BY TIDAL FLOW AND RECOVERY ATTEMPTS, THE EXACT CONDITION OF THE AFT BILGE DRAIN PLUGS WAS UNKNOWN. DURING A CHECK OF THE CVR RECORDING, THE CREW WAS NOT HEARD TO CALL OUT THE BILGE PUMPS DURING THE BEFORE-TAKEOFF CHECKLIST. AFTER LIFT-OFF, BOTH PILOTS MADE COMMENTS ABOUT KEEPING THE NOSE DOWN DUE TO WATER IN THE AFT PORTION OF THE AIRCRAFT.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
FAILURE OF THE PILOT-IN-COMMAND TO ASSURE THE BILGES WERE ADEQUATELY PUMPED FREE OF WATER (ADEQUATELY PREFLIGHTED), WHICH RESULTED IN THE AFT CENTER OF GRAVITY LIMIT TO BE EXCEEDED, AND FAILURE OF THE AIRCREW TO FOLLOW THE CHECKLIST. A FACTOR RELATED TO THE ACCIDENT WAS: THE WATER LEAK.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTSB Identification: MIA76OM002
14 CFR Part 135 Scheduled operation of CHALKS INTERNA
Event occurred Saturday, July 12, 1975 in BIMINI, Bahamas
Aircraft: GRUMMAN G-73, registration: N3010
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FILE DATE LOCATION AIRCRAFT DATA INJURIES FLIGHT PILOT DATA F S M/N PURPOSE----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6-0065 75/7/12 BIMINI,BAHAMAS GRUMMAN G-73 CR- 0 0 2 COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL, AGE 34, 2350 TIME - 1600 N3010 PX- 0 0 13 COMMUTER AIR CARRIER TOTAL HOURS, 1844 IN DAMAGE-SUBSTANTIAL OT- 0 0 0 AIR TAXI-PASSG S-I TYPE, INSTRUMENT RATED. NAME OF AIRPORT - BIMINI BAY DEPARTURE POINT INTENDED DESTINATION BIMINI,BAHAMAS MIAMI,FL TYPE OF ACCIDENT PHASE OF OPERATION GROUND-WATER LOOP-SWERVE TAXI: TO TAKEOFF COLLIDED WITH: OBJECT TAXI: TO TAKEOFF REMARKS- INVESTIGATION UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE GOVT OF BAHAMA.
Once Again: I hope this incident, that CNN is reporting as having many cracks in the wing spar, creates a procedure to prevent it from happening again. I say this just after learning that we just took in our first T-34 annual.
BTW, I wasnt singleing out the Survivors posting, I heard it too!
Fri Dec 23, 2005 6:09 pm
WOW
I have only seen those y shank rivets used once!
I have only seen those y shank rivets used once!