Lake Michigan ditching last week - Curious

[simon]

Some of you may have read about the angel flight last week over Lake Michigan that ended up with the deaths of 4 of the 5 occupants.

This is an interesting one insofar as 3 of the 5 occupants managed to get PFD's on and the pilot was rescued after 2 hours in the water. Sea conditions were mild.

I am presenting our squadron with a session on ditching next week. This one is interesting to me not only because I have crossed lake Michigan a few times in a single engine plane, but because of the failure of the others to survive. At least the pilot is alive to tell.

Tail number N82531.

Photos: http://www.themorningsun.com/articles/2010/08/01/news/doc4c558b5a3aa4e924932336.txt#photo2

Flightaware: http://flightaware.com/live/flight_track_bigmap.rvt?ident=N82531-1279883573-41-0&airports=KAMN+KRST&height=340&width=400&departuretime=1279889520&arrivaltime=1279893968

Sad because he had the failure right in the middle of the lake. It looked like he was doing everything right. Some facts:

- Experienced pilot
- Flown the route many times
- Donating his time and the aircraft to take a cancer patient to the Mayo clinic
- Left Alma, central Michigan, around 9am
- Climbed to a good altitude 10,000' (Must have been IFR). From my experience crossing LM, the higher the better. But the non turbo 206's with 5 on board don't climb well after 10,000. I can see why he picked that altitude. Just like why I picked it in the Turbo Mooney. Because the 'dead zone' where you can't make either shore is down to a few minutes. Looks like he was just very unlucky to lost his engine in the zone.
- Stiff headwinds going West. A Stationair doing only 115kts
- Engine problems 1hr into the flight and 30 minutes into cruise.
- Radiod ATC
- Within a couple of minutes of the failure, decided to turn and head back to the Michigan side
- Almost made it - about 5 miles offshore
- Went for the closest coastline
- Boaters heard the marine radio emergency, saw the plane go down and found the pilot after 2 hours
- Pilot said he saw 2 occupants manage to get their PFD's on
- Aircraft just recovered in about 170 feet of water.
- The empannege was almost separated when they pulled it up. Mostly intact airplane though.

So I am curious as to why the 2 other people with PFD's were not found with the pilot. I suppose anything can happen.

One thing that is tricky about those 206's is that if the flaps are down, you aren't getting out of the back. And the flaps were down in the recovery picture, at least part ways. The occupants were all 60+.

[SarDragon]

Well, you can get out the back door with the flaps down, but you need to practice. You need to open the front part as far as possible (ends up being only a couple of inches), then open the rear part. It will work.

When we got our 206, all the aircrew folks went to the airport and demonstrated the ability to egress through the back door with the flaps down. I should have shot a video; it was comical.

[simon]

I stand corrected. Yes you can get out. But it is awkward at best on the ground so I can't imagine it being a walk in the park in a ditching scenario. Maybe only being able to get the front door open a couple of inches with water coming in might have been a stressful thing.

I'm mainly interested in how the three that got PFD's on either got separated / drowned and that they only found the pilot alive 2 hours after the crash.

Follow up - since then - all bodies have been recovered.

[SarDragon]

But it is awkward at best on the ground

Exactly. The skinny folks had a lot easier time than the mass-challenged people.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

May the dead rest in peace.

As a 206 pilot, I can tell you that yes you can get the cargo door open in-flight, but it is a real PITA to do, even by someone who has been trained in the procedure.  There is a forward cargo door and a rear cargo door and with the flaps down only the rear door can open.  If you look at the linked picture the right center seat person has to put the their seat back down and roll over themself to get out.  Not a pleasant situaton during a forced landing, expedially a ditching.

[davidsinn]

Does that door provide structual strength when closed? I wondering why it's not a slider. It would seem safer to me.

[bosshawk]

Why not ask Cessna, they designed it.  I suspect that one reason for it not being a slider is the additional weight of the slide rails and mechanism: the hinges on the two doors as they are currently configured are pretty light and simple.  Weight is fairly important on any aircraft and a small one especially.

[SarDragon]

Does that door provide structual strength when closed? I wondering why it's not a slider. It would seem safer to me.

Is it permissible for it to be open, or totally removed, in flight? If so, then the answer to your Q is no. If not, then the answer is probably.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

I don't "think" that the door is structural, as there is a mod to add a wind break and fly with the doors off.  The problem with a slider is that as you can see from the picture above there is no structure for the door to slide backwards.

[Flying Pig]

Nothing structural.  A slider would be very heavy and would be impractical.  Hinges, rollers.  There wouldnt be enough rail to support the door if it were opened because the fuselage curves back immediately behind the door.  Besides, the fowrad door is within a half inch or so of the bottom of the wing.  meaning no room for hinges.  It would be a lot of strucure to add the minivan door.  Look at the GA-8. There is a lot to that sliding door as far as small planes go.
Its just how it was made.  The cheapest and lightest way possible.  The door is so flimsy you could kick it open with ease if needed.  Whoever was in the back probably just could think about how to get it open.
The particular T206H I fly has the rear most seats removed.  And the middle seats are more to the rear inline with the doors.  We only fly it as a 4 seater.

[simon]

Does that door provide structual strength when closed? I wondering why it's not a slider. It would seem safer to me.

I agree, it is a fair question. But the #1 priority in the design of certifiable aircraft is "Will this plane be a commercial success?"'. Regardless of the merits to the buyer, everything else ranks a distant second, because few certified aircraft even meet the primary goal.

I know of an owner who bought a new 182 in 2008 that considered upgrading to a 206 this year. A friend of mine who has been instructing him asked what he thought of the plane. "It doesn't have cup holders" he said.

You'd think that for 600k in a cruising plane, Cessna might have thought of that in their mouldings. I guess there weren't enough buyers that considered it a deal breaker.

Off topic, I will add that being a scanner in the back of a 206 with a couple of seats removed is far more civilized than in a 182. You can actually get comfortable.