← Back to Squawk list
  • 75

SR-22 ditched in Pacific Ocean en-route to Hawaii

Submitted
The U.S. Coast Guard is responding to a distress call from a single engine aircraft running out of fuel approximately 975 miles north of the Big Island. (dcnewsroom.blogspot.com) More...

Robert Moore
News junkieMaxed OutPromoterAnnouncer

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


stephenparsons
stephen parsons 1
I was out there that day, much of the pilots short tenure in the water is thanks to a very sharp senior United Airlines Captain that took charge of the situation and raised all of the shipping traffic near by on HF and was able to get the cruise ship to divert a bit to pick up the pilot on their way to Ensenada Mexico. The pilot was cool as a cucumber for the time we were monitoring the situation, he knew he could not access the remaining fuel about 4 hours before he splashed into the Pacific. This was a textbook ditching, kudos to all involved, the Coast Guard came off of Barber’s point and loitered for about 2 hours above and immediately deployed a raft and survival equipment. The aircraft sank very quickly. We monitored on our way into KOA and on the way back to OAK.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
rvtole
Harve Toledano 1
A great rescue, it shows how effective the CG is. Pilot was smart enough to declare emergency early enough. All hands did a great job. Vectoring him towards the cruise ship and final rescue. Pilot kept his cool getting into the raft. Semper Paratus.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
I am wondering how the pilot knew in advance the fuel bladder was going to fail.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
stephenparsons
stephen parsons 1
He was rotating tank usage for CG control and figured it out over 4 hours before he went into the drink. He cut open the bladder and was attempting to bale fuel into a good tank but got too busy and the coffee cup wasn’t effective.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
preacher1
preacher1 1
I figure he had already ran a tank down and was going to pump into it from the ferry tank
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
That makes sense. Thanks.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
picker77
Jerry Kincade 1
I admit to being a non-pilot non-air guy with a Navy engineering background. But for the extra few $ involved, I believe a valve THAT critical to a ferry operation should have had an emergency bypass valve plumbed in parallel to it. With all the super-intense attention paid to safety in aircraft mechanics/design, I'm a bit shocked that that's not SOP for temp fuel bladders.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
preacher1
preacher1 1
See Ron Nash's post below. Nothing sacred about anything anymore. For some things there is no explanation.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
egad
James Hodges 1
Many years ago our clubs new Beech Musketeer's fuel tank selector valve stuck, fortunately on a tank, not in between, also, fortunately there were several airports nearby, not just open water. New things seem to have a higher failure rate than tried and true!!!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
Davepierce629
Dave Pierce 2
. I have a 2010 cirrus sr 22 turbo it holds 92 gallons of fuel, from California to Hilo on the big island in around 2100 knautical miles, this is the shortest route, at 16 gallons a hour and a 175 knots it would take around 12 hours or 192 gallons, these are conservative numbers on fuel consumption and speed, at ten thousand I get a easy 185 kits on around 15 to 16 gph. Go higher and you go faster, the chute fires out the back of the aircraft and the 45 degrees nose down upon deployment is normal, there's a collar close to the chute when you deploy it to keep it from inflating to soon and tearing it off, as the chute comes to center over the aircraft it slides down the shroud lines and fully deploys and you float down a 7 mph, under the center armrest is a small hammer pointed on one end this can be used to break out the windows in case doors are jammed, a 300lb person could easily go out one of the back windows, for the record this pilot did everything exactly right, a cirrus is the safest single engine plane built.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
egad
James Hodges 0
I saw some statistics not long ago that the C 150 is the safest, but there are different ways of rating safety.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
AlFranckowiak
Al Franckowiak 1
Our Coast Guard is absolutely AMAZING!!!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
Dl8698
David Loh 1
Once the pilot considered ditching was inevitable and the coast guard had been contacted, was the pilot directed to fly immediately towards the nearest suitable ship and ditch as near that ship as possible even before running out of useable fuel? Seems to me this would have brought the rescue to a much earlier conclusion.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
preacher1
preacher1 1
I think in in one of these stories, the took him close on fuel and near the ship that got him, meaning he flew as long as he could, not to the nearest ship.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
CaptDash
Capt Dash 1
I guess there was some reason he could not prove the flow from the ferry tank before going out of range for installed fuel capacity. I always made a practice of using fuel from ferry tanks asap - just in case.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Maybe he did and it worked fine-ONCE! Lol
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
andyc852
Andy Cruickshank 1
Just a question. Do the ferry tanks feed the standard tanks or are they routed to feed the engine (s) directly. I see your logic and agree that it makes sense. Are all ferry tanks plumbed the same way. Think there is a post here about fuel drums installed in place of rear seats etc! See John Miller post below
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
preacher1
preacher1 1
I was kinda curious about that myself and just flatly don't know, but I had the impression in talking to some ferry pilots and from comments here, that most ferry tanks just fed the main tanks and didn't plumb straight to the engines.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
annellandfrank
John Taylor 1
Yes!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
rtataryn
Rod Tataryn 2
ABC News this morning interviews the pilot - Lue Morton . . . http://abcnews.go.com/US/pilot-lue-morton-describes-hardest-part-parachuting-ocean/story?id=28572894
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
mpmt06
Mark Thomas 1
Anyone know what the maximum speed is to deploy the chute?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
gordonf
Gordon Feingold 1
There used to be a POH (and placard) recommendation to deploy at 135 KIAS or less, but based on field experience where several deployments were successful at much higher speeds, that has been de-emphasized or removed. It has worked at Vne (~ 200 KIAS) but failed at grossly-excessive speed (an estimated 300 knots in one case).
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
rtataryn
Rod Tataryn 1
The Cirrus POH states the demonstrated CAPS deployment speed for certification is 133 KIAS. However, an actual CAPS deployment at Bennett, CO, was the highest airspeed recorded at 191 KIAS.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
You might check here: http://cirrusaircraft.com/sr22/
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
rigger69
Devin Somerton 1
The parachute System is made and packed by Ballistic Recovery Systems (BRS) then delivered to Cirrus to be installed by a certified Cirrus Engineer.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
zainulp
Sainulabid Pothangodan 0
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Video: Airframe parachute save pilot and Cirrus SR22 airplane

On 25 January 2015, a pilot flying a Cirrus SR22 aircraft from the United States to Hawaii successfully deployed the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) over the Pacific Ocean approximately 250 miles from Hawaii.

http://www.aviationanalysis.net/2015/01/parachute-save-pilot-cirrus-sr22.html
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
lavalampluva
lavalampluva 1
I didn't think the a/c would have had the range to make such a flight.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
preacher1
preacher1 1
Not sure of how much it would carry but this was a ferry flight going on to Australia, so I am sure he had extra tanks inside. See some of the other comments below.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
WHY???
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Eddiesno2
Eddiesno2 0
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Video SR-22 Ditches In Pacific Off Maui

Pilot declared emergency ~1000 miles NE of Maui and eventually ditched ~230 miles NE of Maui. The pilot successfully ditched in the Pacific and was eventually rescued by a passenger cruise ship.

http://www.kitv.com/news/pilot-expected-to-ditch-off-maui/30916578
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Does the Cirrus have a parachute quick-disconnect option? It appears the chute pulled the a/c over in the wind which led to its early filling.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
rtataryn
Rod Tataryn 2
Joel, No it doesn't have a disconnect. It would be a good feature in high wind situations, or at least a way to deflate it.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ccross
Chuck Cross 1
See my comment below about the plane and the parachute.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
mpmt06
Mark Thomas 1
I was surprised at how quickly it flipped over and began to sink, maybe it was just the chute dragging it through the water...
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
rtataryn
Rod Tataryn 1
Yep. Winds were 28 knots and 9-12 ft seas. The chute acted as a sail and pulled the aircraft downwind quickly flipping it. Reaction time had to be quick in this scenario. Left door was opened ahead of time. Right door was blocked by the ferry tank in place of the right seat. Great outcome.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

joelwiley
joel wiley 3
I can understand your position on this. My only question to you is what it has to do with the current situation. Your comment leads one to believe you did not read the the comments: Posted 7 hours before your post that there was a valve problem making the auxiliary fuel unavailable.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 10
That's a very MORONIC statement!!! Research, get some knowledge on the topic before you post!!!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

preacher1
preacher1 8
And I see no credentials under your name on the profile so either STFU or leave. Get him THRUSTT
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
andyc852
Andy Cruickshank 2
Or as we say in the South "Bless his (Jackson Franco) heart" while patting him gently on the head!!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

andyc852
Andy Cruickshank 4
I never claimed to be "all there" Preacher is an ATP and a respected poster on here. All he is saying is read and review the facts.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
preacher1
preacher1 1
Thanks for the support.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

THRUSTT
THRUSTT 3
It's you who doesn't seem to understand facts, and you're still avoiding my questions. Why do you think this pilot was beyond his fuel limit. Come on, state the facts!!!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 3
He was beyond his fuel limitations because of a Mechanical Malfunction in the fuel system... He would have had enough fuel if that had not been the case... He had no way of knowing this until it was too late.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 4
I think he's someone other than the son of Jack...
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

THRUSTT
THRUSTT 4
You still haven't answered my question. Instead of calling the pilot a moron in the beginning, explain yourself!!!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
RickHarrison
Rick Harrison 1
AIN'T all pilots ... morons? I'm from the South too... LOL Boys.. Boys... can't we all just be friends?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
We could!!!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
preacher1
preacher1 3
Seems to me that THRUSTT just wanted a question answered and got a rash of trash. I just told the young man that he ought to read a little first before he started the name callin'. He's the one that got all bent out of shape. Too bad. I'll be friends until somebody don't want to play or talk nice, but I am old and grumpy now and have paid my dues, so if I'm kinda crotchety to some folks, they'll just have to get over it.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 4
Something tells me you're wasting your breath. Education isn't always an option.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 5
Whoa, the old man's been drinking some firewater I see!!!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
preacher1
preacher1 1
No firewater, just aggravated. Like I said, sometimes you gotta speak plain so it can be understood
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
preacher1
preacher1 1
You try and be nice but sometimes you gotta speak plain.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
preacher1
preacher1 4
OUR research indicates a faulty fuel valve; knowing that situation existed, there was plenty of time to set up the rescue. This was a professional ferry pilot delivering to Australia, with a fuel stop planned in Maui. All was good til the valve went bad.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 2
Enlighten me, what is his fuel limit???
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
30west
30west 3
Don't know the fuel capacity with the extra tanks in this situation, but I have an example from a ferry pilot I talked with in MRY as he was explaining the "new" fuel system to me a number of years back. He was ferrying a C-172 to the South Pacific with PHTO the first stop .... 2318 miles away.

It had the aft bench seat and "co-pilot" seat stored in the tail cone, a 55-gal drum was set laterally where the back seat was located and another 55 gal drum was set longitudinally where the "co-pilot" seat was located. Then a plywood section was set above the forward 55 gal drum and about five (or so, I believe that was the number) 5 gal gas cans secured atop the plywood.

An aux electric fuel pump pumped fuel from the plumed-together 55 drums to the wing tanks for use. He had to manually hand pump the fuel from the 5 gal cans into the 55 gal drums. He estimated his reserves to be two hours.

It had a ferry permit for takeoff at up to 150% of certified gross weight. Aft CG was way out of limits, could only climb to about 2000' until fuel was burned and he needed an overall zero headwind component for the flight before he would takeoff. I saw him a few months later doing it again.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
Was the 'number of years ago' greater than FAA 'statute of limitation'? 8-)
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 2
You must be remembering the days when pilots used waterbeds for fuel bladders to haul dope from South America.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
30west
30west 2
It was, your honor!!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
hharney
Herb Harney 0
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Amazing Footage Of A Pilot Successfully Ditching A Plane 253 Miles Off From Hawaii

A pilot successfully ditched his plane 253 miles northeast of the Hawaiian island of Maui after going into an incredible nosedive, according to a US Coast Guard video.

http://www.businessinsider.com/pilot-ditching-plane-close-to-hawaii-video-2015-1
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
djjamar
Jamar Jackson 0
Should have left from San Diego which is 400+ miles more south
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
ronash13
Ron Nash 2
Should have found a handy U.S. aircraft carrier, too! LOL
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
SAN is further...
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
djjamar
Jamar Jackson 1
So you telling me San Diego is farther from Hawaii then Tracy. How did you come up with this?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
SAN-PHOG is 136 miles longer than KTCY-PHOG, just based on a direct route.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Guess GPS isn't as popular as I thought.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Mateo
Mateo 3
Tracy is substantially further west than San Diego. Tracy-Maui is 2388mi. San Diego-Maui is 2541mi.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=TCY-OGG,+SAN-OGG
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
djjamar
Jamar Jackson 1
Thanks, seems your right. I live in LA and work in Tracy every week just seemed Socal was closer to the Islands
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
preacher1
preacher1 2
It would seem that way and might be so with a final destination of Australia, but not for the flight plan. To boot, California makes a big move to the East as you go further South.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
preacher1
preacher1 1
Methinks he's talking that SAN is further from Maui,which was the projected refuel spot I think.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
paultrubits
paul trubits 4
One lucky fellow. Bet he gets to sit at the Captain's table for dinner.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
ADXbear
ADXbear 2
great video and coordination of rescue and what a ferry pilot goes through in an emergency... These guys have nerves of steel... Id be nervous with that extra fuel tank carried in the cabin to make these trips...

Cool video of the BRS system from start to finish... great outcome, insurance company not happy... oh well..
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
ronash13
Ron Nash 2
The guys with nerves of steel and who carried their cojones around in wheelbarrows, were the Qantas Catalina pilots who flew from Perth, Western Australia to Lake Koggala, Ceylon (Sri Lanka) during WW2.
The Catalinas carried 15,700lbs of gasoline, 25% of which was in additional internal tanks.
The designed MTOW of the Catalina was just 27,000lbs! Qantas managed to have that figure increased to 35,150lbs.
The Catalinas were so heavy on takeoff, they were struggling to gain 100' in altitude, 10 miles after lifting off the Swan River.
Cargo ability was limited to 1000lbs, which meant only 3 or 4 VIP pax and a small amount of War-critical mail and documentation.
The Catalinas flew for an average of 28 hrs non-stop. The fastest flight was 22 hrs, the slowest, just over 32 hrs.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
rtmore666666
Robert Moore 0
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Dramatic video shows pilot ditch Cirrus plane in Pacific Ocean

The pilot of a single engine Cirrus SR-22 aircraft (tail number N7YT) that ran out of fuel is safe after ditching his aircraft 253 miles northeast of Maui, Hawaii on Sunday.

http://dcnewsroom.blogspot.com/2015/01/dramatic-video-shows-pilot-ditch-cirrus.html
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Bad News.. Sorry to hear this...
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
blueashflyer
blueashflyer 1
Darnit, 90% of the way there. A little better tailwind and he could ride that parachute toward land. Looks like he floated for a while. He actually covered 3.3 nm of distance just riding down on the parachute.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
rtataryn
Rod Tataryn 20
Coast guard video of the ditching and rescue. The word is that a stuck fuel valve prevented use of one of the fuel bladders. There was about a three hour notice allowing time to plan the rescue.

http://www.dvidshub.net/video/388574/pilot-safe-after-ditching-253-miles-maui#.VMZGxEc8KrW
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
I have heard of someone being cool while under pressure... but that guy to it to extremes... Almost like he planned it that way!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 4
Very nice video.. The pilot looked down right relaxed in the life raft after the exit... Thanks for posting.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
preacher1
preacher1 7
If that was a delivery flight as posted by Jeff Lawson below, there almost had to be something to knock out the fuel. Ditching and rescue were wonderful. Kudos to both the Coast guard and the cruise ship, and thanks to you for finding and posting this video.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ExCalbr
Victor Engel 2
There's a post in the discussion to the original link stating that the transfer mechanism for the extra fuel tanks failed, so the plane went down with 25 gallons on board.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
rtataryn
Rod Tataryn 2
Yes, it was a brand new Cirrus SR22 being delivered to Australia. The ferry flight was to stop in Maui for refueling.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Wow... that is a very long Ferry Flight!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
volvodadfast
volvodadfast 2
Thank you for posting this amazing video. Pilot was lucky that the wind blew the chute to the other side of the aircraft so there was less chance of getting tangled in the cords. The aircraft flipping over was pretty scary. Glad the pilot made it out OK.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
gordonf
Gordon Feingold 2
The "cords" are about 60 feet away from the aircraft, which is attached by 4 Kevlar straps to a ring where the actual cords (shrouds) are attached. So with any wind at all, the likelihood of getting tangled up in the cords is minimal. But your point about being lucky regarding which side he ended up on is still valid, because if it was 180 degrees from how it ended up the airplane could have flipped on top of him in the raft instead of away from him.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
rwf1001
Robert Fleming 2
watched video of that on ABC7News a few minutes ago-Those SR-22 aircraft are fascinating! That made for a safe recovery of the pilot. Thank Goodness
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

linbb
linbb 4
Your comment is amateurish at the best unless you have been around a pilot who does that for a living don't even comment. I have, they arrive, almost take the plane apart to inspect it. Add or help add the fuel and oil systems they require. Flight check the AC and in doing so they measure oil consumption, fuel usage and flying qualities. They do not rely on anything other than what they get out of there tests. Oh about the pilot, they are very physically fit, exercise every day and eat very well. Nothing except professional pilots here. This is my first had knowledge seeing several set out for the trip from CA to the island and then beyond. Only one of them was lost between the island and there next stop never found either.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

joelwiley
joel wiley 2
Ah, the similac of human kindness ;-)
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
bovineone
Jeff Lawson 1
Based on the registration data, it looks like this was a newly built and registered SR-22 that was possibly being delivered to its first customer? http://flightaware.com/resources/registration/N7YT
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
bovineone
Jeff Lawson 2
Looks like it was N7YT -- http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N7YT/history/20150125/1245Z/KTCY/PHOG
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Is this a recently recycled number? Airframes.org thinks N7YT is a BEECH A36TC built in 1980
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
RRKen
Kenneth Schmidt 2
Airframes.org is not a good source for U.S. registrations, or at best, is not kept up to date. Use http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_inquiry.aspx
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ccross
Chuck Cross 1
It was just certified on Jan 12 and registered to Cirrus Design Corp.
It does show a Cirrus SR22 on the FAA site.

Strange but Cirrus also makes and sells the Cirrus Airframe Parachute that was used on this plane. Could this have been a Test
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
rigger69
Devin Somerton 1
The parachute System is made and packed by Ballistic Recovery Systems (BRS) then delivered to Cirrus to be installed by a certified Cirrus Engineer.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
bovineone
Jeff Lawson 1
Recycled on 16-Jan-2015 it looks like.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 4
That is going to be an expensive 25 gal of gas.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
nasdisco
Chris B 1
Boy that must suck for the future owner.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 2
It does. We were to get serial #1 of the Lancair 400. They crashed it doing high altitude spin testing. Nearly a year later we had serial # 2.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
I think I'd have reservations of getting "#1" of just about anything!

Let someone else test out the airframe and make find the mistakes. I'll take the revised version.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 2
Gotcha. But the 400 was really the same airframe as the 350, just twin turboed INLO fuel injected. Certification time was to be minimal and there was a substantial discount involved. The deal stood and we got #2 with the discount and it never missed a beat.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ronash13
Ron Nash 3
I don't understand why people and companies risk losing expensive aircraft over the vastness of the Pacific via ferry flights.
In this case a brand-new $600K-700K aircraft is lost, all due to a faulty valve that's maybe worth $200.
Shipping the aircraft to its destination on a cargo ship sure looks a whole lot better option to me - rather than losing the whole aircraft over one faulty tiny part.
After all, they ARE doing the proving flight right after assembly - and doing it over an area that ensures total loss, if just one single thing goes wrong.
Seems to me it's a no-brainer to ship it to Australia and do the first proving flights over land, where the aircraft can be recovered, if a component failure is encountered - even if it doesn't land in a clear area.
The cost of installing the ferry tanks and valving and hiring a ferry pilot, can be deducted from the shipping cost as well.
Then there's the factor of the insurance premiums that will now be much higher for Cirrus as a result of this fiasco, as well.
Getting a payout out on a total loss is going to make their insurance premium renewal cost give the Cirrus accountants some heartburn, next time it comes due.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
RickHarrison
Rick Harrison 3
But wouldn't it be wonderful to fly a brand new plane, over the ocean.... and to Hawaii and then Australia!... I'll fly the next one! :)
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
JosephRestivo
Joseph Restivo 1
Taxes. If you ship it you have to pay taxes and import and export fees. If you fly it you don't have to pay any.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ronash13
Ron Nash 2
That's not correct, as far as Australia is concerned. You pay GST and a small import duty upon importation, no matter how it arrives. What you don't have to pay if you fly it in, is port fees and shipping agent/broker fees.
I'd guess handling damage and salt spray damage could be a concern in shipping. However these can be managed with proper preparation and protective packaging.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
As they say, you pays your money and takes your choices. What percentage of ferry flights end like this? Cargo ships do sink on occasion as well as losing cargo over the side. Again, what percent are those occurrences?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
preacher1
preacher1 1
The oceans are littered with containers that have went over the side.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
preacher1
preacher1 1
I'm not sure but I imagine money has got something to do with it and time as well. When off the line, there is a customer somewhere that has already spent some big $ and wants his plane. A thought would be to get ahead on production a bit and ship those via ship to a dealer on land for reassembly and check flight, rather than a ferry flight. Just Sayin'
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
rtataryn
Rod Tataryn 3
An Australian Cirrus owner was was recently quoted $40,000-00 ferry and $45,000-00 shipping. Note that ferrying involves several weeks and shipping several months. These prices both include putting the aircraft on the Australian register @ about $10,000. Based on these figures ferrying is about $5,000 cheaper but shipping takes several months longer. Another nominal downside of ferrying is the additional hours on the airframe. Shipping is not with out risk of airframe damage, but usually not catastrophic, and of course it's insured. Of course the ferry flights are insured as well. The biggest risk with the ferrying option is the pilot's life - they'll make more airplanes. This one turned out well.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
avanha
Andre Vanha 1
Thanks for sharing this. I'm surprised that ferrying is that expensive. That certainly adds to the cost of an airplane in Australia. I would have guessed around $20,000. However, as this incident illustrates, it's complex risky operation.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Turns out flight planning was A ok. Faulty valve. Wonder where it was made?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
bentwing60
bentwing60 2
I could guess but ball valves have been around since the beginning of time.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
Mine has been working for 47 years without failure...
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
I installed a ball valve yesterday putting in a new RO system. Your ball valve won't last near as long and word has it that it is subject to frequent failure even though made in USA.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ronash13
Ron Nash 3
I had a business associate who had a fuel tank selector valve fail on his PA-28.
He had to land on country highway, but he hit a roadside sign with a wing and did $20,000 worth of damage to the Cherokee.
The safety authorities took the valve away for testing and it failed twice in 4000 cycles.
No-one could figure out why it worked perfectly 99.5% of the time and failed 0.05% of the time.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
annellandfrank
John Taylor 1
Yes, they do indeeed fail...and they shouldn't! I too had one lock-up on my Cherokee. I always change tanks while reserve remains...so I simply landed nearest airport. No can do over water
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
preacher1
preacher1 1
That is weird
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ronash13
Ron Nash 1
Indeed. It left a lot of people scratching their heads. I guess it's just the fact that nothing man-made is 100% fail-safe. Even NASA didn't get it right, many a time.
A piece of stray grit, a sticky solenoid, you always got to have your fall-back plan well-honed.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Login

Forgot password?
Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Join FlightAware
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss