Beechhurst, NY, USA
N6506M
CESSNA 182
The pilot of the amphibious float-equipped airplane was landing on a river near his home. The pilot reported that the airplane bounced after touchdown and he applied full throttle to abort the landing, during which the airplane veered left and impacted a concrete bulkhead. The pilot-rated passenger reported that, during touchdown, the pilot attempted to avoid a boat and the airplane veered left. The floats contacted the wake from the boat, resulting in a bounce, after which the pilot applied power to abort the landing. The pilot and passenger both reported that, had the pilot reduced engine power to idle instead of attempting to take off, the airplane would have collided with the bulkhead at a slower speed. Surveillance video captured the airplane travelling at high speed, in a nose-high attitude, with both pontoons in the water when it collided with the bulkhead. The pontoons were generating white foam, spray, and a noticeable wake. A witness on a nearby boat reported that the airplane was landing with a 10- to 15-knot tailwind and a weather observation from the nearest airport indicated a 10-knot quartering tailwind for the pilot’s chosen landing direction. Based on the available information, it is most likely that the pilot selected a landing area where tailwind conditions prevailed and that provided inadequate distance from obstacles (boats and the concrete bulkhead). His subsequent decision to abort the landing with insufficient takeoff distance available resulted in a high-speed collision with the concrete bulkhead. It is likely that the tailwind/quartering tailwind conditions contributed to the accident by increasing the airplane’s touchdown speed, decreasing its directional stability upon touchdown, and increasing the takeoff distance after the pilot chose to abort the landing.
On October 4, 2020, about 1505 eastern daylight time, a Cessna 182P amphibious floatplane, N6506M, was involved in an accident near Beechhurst, New York. The private pilot and the pilot-rated passenger in the copilot seat were seriously injured, and the passenger in the rear seat was fatally injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. The pilot and pilot-rated passenger were interviewed by New York Police Department (NYPD) detectives and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) aviation safety inspectors. The pilot reported that he did not remember the events surrounding the accident. The pilot-rated passenger reported that the purpose of the flight was to fly from Brookhaven Airport (HWV) to the pilot’s home on the south bank of the East River between the Throgs Neck Bridge and the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge. The passenger stated that the pilot initiated the landing approach on the eastern side of the Throgs Neck Bridge and flew the approach westbound and beneath the bridge “as they normally do.” He said that as the airplane touched down on the water, they noticed a boat had recently crossed their intended landing path and created a wake, which the airplane struck, causing it to “bounce twice.” The pilot appeared to “veer left” to avoid the wake but realized that the airplane was “too fast” as it approached a concrete pier on the river’s southern bank. The pilot increased engine power to initiate a go-around, provoking the passenger to ask, “What are you doing?” The passenger went on to explain that collision with the dock was inevitable and that, if the pilot “were to have cut the power, the crash would have been a lot less forceful.” In a written statement, a pilot-rated witness traveling eastbound by boat about 200 to 300 yards west of the airplane’s initial touchdown point stated that the airplane was landing downwind with an estimated tailwind of 10 to 15 knots. He stated, “First water contact was nearly level and produced a very high rebound. Second contact appeared to be left pontoon only which may have skewed the craft to the south leading to the impact.” The witness then responded to the scene and provided first aid and assistance to the occupants. Weeks after the accident, the pilot was interviewed by FAA aviation safety inspectors. He provided an account of the accident consistent with that provided by his pilot-rated passenger. The pilot was asked specifically about the performance of the airplane at the point where he attempted to abort the landing. He stated that he applied full throttle and that the engine responded with “correct full throttle power and that the engine was performing normally.” The pilot said that the airplane lacked the airspeed and the distance necessary to successfully complete a safe takeoff. He added, “I don’t know why I pushed the throttle.” The pilot said that the airplane would have impacted the bulkhead regardless but at a much slower speed. Review of surveillance video recovered by NYPD detectives revealed only a brief view of the airplane before impact. The airplane was travelling at a high rate, in a nose-high attitude, with both pontoons in the water when it collided with the pier. The pontoons generated white foam and spray and a noticeable wake. The airplane was destroyed by impact. The engine was separated from its mounts, and the floats were entangled with the fuselage. The airplane was recovered to an aircraft recovery facility where it was later examined. The examination revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or anomalies. A surface observation at LaGuardia International Airport (LGA), 4 miles west of the accident site, recorded wind from 050° at 10 knots. The Federal Aviation Administration Seaplane, Skiplane, and Float/Ski Equipped Helicopter Operations Handbook (FAA-H-8083-23-1) stated: If a seaplane touches down while drifting sideways, the sudden resistance as the floats contact the water creates a skidding force that tends to push the downwind float deeper into the water. The combination of the skidding force, wind, and weathervaning as the seaplane slows down can lead to a loss of directional control and a waterloop….Floatplanes frequently have less crosswind component capability than their landplane counterparts. Directional control can be more difficult on water because the surface is more yielding, there is less surface friction than on land, and seaplanes lack brakes.
The pilot’s selection of a landing area that provided inadequate distance from obstacles and his subsequent decision to abort the landing with inadequate takeoff distance available, which resulted in a high-speed collision with a concrete bulkhead. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s decision to land with a tailwind, which degraded the airplane’s performance and handling characteristics.
Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database
Aviation Accidents App
In-Depth Access to Aviation Accident Reports
