I was on duty when this happend - Air Greenland has a EC55 helo on SAR call in the south, but i was very happy with the CL60 and the Triton with a seahawk very VERY close to the splash site. They gave me a real time update as it unfolded.
Where is Air Greenland's helo stationed? Last time I was in Narsarsuaq I was told the closest helicopter was Nuuk. It's been a couple of years so hopefully that changed. Did they say why the Malibu was in trouble?
@@KerryDMcCauley In Narsarsuaq, but it is used for scheduled pax service, and has to return to Narsarsuaq and get ready for SAR (Maybe crew change, hoist operator fuel etc) Otherwise it is the Airbus SuperPuma out of Kangerlussuaq , that is on hot std by for SAR
Lucky guys... and God showed the Danish rescuers the right way at the right time and put them in the right place. I was really surprised at the great resolution of the Challenger video equipment.
Glad it all went well for these guys. But the airport at Narsarsuaq is being replaced with a new airport about 30nm south west near the town of Qaqortoq. No more remote valley. Given that it's being built from scratch (versus the WWII vintage) I wonder what they can do, if anything, for it to be shut down by weather less often? But some day I'd love to see this part of the world, ideally flying.
@@markp3309 thousand’s of airplanes piston powered mostly crossing the Atlantic every year !!! A landing on water you can survive , very seldom on Forrest 30 m high or rocky terrain .
Love a happy ending ... in old movies even more, real life - and this story right up a screenplay writer's alley. Tho how believable would be ... calm N Atlantic seas, daytime ditch, another plane near enough by to record video, AND a big ol' navy boat, too? Wouldn't even buy the storyline if it wasn't true - thank goodness big ATC guy in the sky it was/is. And yeah, I'm those two I'm taking the long way from now on. ;-)
Kerry, great video and information. Transatlantic crossing has been on my bucket list since I became a pilot. Currently a TBM7 pilot, who knows... maybe next summer :)
Funny, I didn't even know it was in frame. I set it there so I wouldn't forget to grab it to get filled because I've got a Queen Air trip coming up.......I forgot it.
I agree with everything you said except, I would NOT tie up to the plane. I get the reasoning however; you should have a beacon locator with you in your raft, and I would not risk puncturing a hole in the raft especially if you're in warm waters were sharks are very likely. When you hit the water its also likely you'll bend up your plane making jagged edges a likely possibility so for that reason I'd use the crappy ores if I have em, to stay close to the wreckage. If possible if not the locator should aerve as a good finder. Great video.
That used to be my thought as well. But in doing research about ditching I've changed my mind. But not if there's a risk of puncture or if you can't untie easily.
Great outcome and water landing. Weather was no factor which could have been nasty. Rent the survival gear, its money well spent up there on that route.
They did have a raft though, pretty handy if rescue was far ahead. very sloppy of the danish jet to miss the landing. they had one job. A 300kg pressurized sleek twin jet would be nicer to cross the atlantic in. It's impressive that the malibu is floating though. A lot of planes can't wait to sink. a well made plane can ditch in the ocean and float for days so you don't need a raft. In the frigid atlantic that's handy.
I flew that route several times aboard light planes (although not as many as this video's author!) I was conveying from the USA to Europe, and one time vice-versa... to Oshkosh AirVenture, precisely! The possibility of ditching is always a risk, especially in a single-engine plane like that Malibu; so much so that it is mandatory that all occupants of a small aircraft, on that route, wear exposure-protection suits (just like the one shown on the picture) at all time. An inflatable lifeboat, as well as a floating ELT (Emergency Landing Transmitter), and a few other things are also required equipment. When you leave Canada, the authorities generally check that you are properly equipped. Outside Canadian airports, this check is often not done, unfortunately (never was it checked in my experience in Greenland, nor Iceland, nor Scotland). The Canadians take that quite seriously; hat off to them! The pilot is also in constant radio contact with the competent authorities... except for a stretch of ocean further east than the tip of Greenland, when radio contact is lost to aircraft flying not high enough (at least it was then... maybe that has changed...). But even then, you switch to the air-to-air frequency (123.45 MHz back when I flew that route... which was easy to remember, now 122.75), and you have plenty of airliner crews to chat with! You are never alone up there! And those guys in the Malibu were quite obviously not! It is reassuring to know that, should a problem occur, a message of distress could always be relayed! As to the prop being stopped in this particular incident, it does not say ANYTHING of the probable cause of engine failure, because the pilot certainly feathered it as soon as power was lost, as the Malibu is obviously fitted with a controllable-pitch prop. A feathered prop, contrary to a wind-milling one, substantially extends gliding range, or time in the air as in this incident. One more comment on the two routes you presented, as well as to your comments about the uncertainty of the weather in those regions. Narsarsuaq is prone to quick and unforeseen fogging... and should it happen, you basically have no alternative. Søndre Strømfjord, at the contrary, benefits from a very sheltered micro-climate. Not to say that the weather can't get naughty up there, but the forecast is much more dependable... always spot on in my (limited) experience. It also benefits from a much longer runway, and an easier and safer IFR approach, should it be needed. At the time, air traffic was still handled by the USAF, and those guys could give you a radar-guided approach right down to the numbers! I personally have NEVER chosen the Narsarsuaq route, even if it is shorter overall (not the over-water stretch, as you rightly pointed out). One last advantage of the northern route: the impressive crossing of the Greenland ice sheet, and the stop at Kulusuk, which also offers great sightseeing of glaciers and of calving or recently calved icebergs in the fjords around! A piece of advice though: you'd better have a thick wad of cash (and only cash, at least then) if you need fuel at Kulusuk, as it was available only by the drum-full (and to be pumped with a hand pump!)... and at an outrageous price!!! But things have probably changed... I probably sound like a ranting old man! 😉
All good points, especially about the cost of fuel in Kulusuk! If you only need 5 gallons from the last 55 gallon drum you're paying for the whole barrel. As far as the prop being feathered, I'm 90% sure this was a piston Malibu so you can't feather the prop. That leads me to believe that either the engine seized up or they got slow enough to stop it, probably on purpose thinking that a stopped propeller is less drag than a windmilling one. Just speculating there. Thanks for watching!
@@KerryDMcCauley When I crossed the pond for the first time, back in 1991, I was ferrying the Seneca III I had just bought two weeks prior in Baltimore, flying it to its new home in Geneva... and my IFR ticket was only 2 days old. So, I had a co-pilot who happened to be my IFR instructor, who had volunteered to tag along. In Kulusuk, she supervised the fueling, while I went to the barrack which was then the airport's office to pay the fees. When I came back to the plane, I found out that she had started pumping from a second drum, and had filled the tanks to the brim... the whole of 4 or 5 gallons, as a matter of fact! I was out of my mind, as the previous evening, we had the two of us together carefully planned the flight, and calculated the fuel required, and had agreed that a single drum was more than enough. But, actually, she proved to be a hopeless and fearful pilot the minute we left her local area of Maryland... and fair weather! I remember her panicking, as flying pilot, on an IFR approach to Iqualuit in blowing snow (in August!!!)... I, the freshly minted IFR pilot had to take over and complete the approach! We landed in Reykjavik with half-full tanks... and those marginal 4-5 gallons cost me something close to $800 of 1991, if my memory serves me well!!! I have some flight hours on a Malibu, but a turboprop one. So, I had assumed ALL Malibus had a full-feathering prop. You could be right.... but I have a slight problem believing that such a sophisticated plane wouldn't have a full-fathering prop, even in a piston version. It DOES extend glide range significantly, should sh.t hit the fan... and that is worth something in a single-engine!
@@st-ex8506 The good old days! My first low approach ever was into St. Johns was on my first ferry trip crossing back in December 1989. Low clouds, blowing snow, high winds at night. Welcome to ferry flying!
Don't know about tying off to the Malibu Kerry ...those rafts should have a " sea anchor " which should keep the pilots and raft fairly close to the crash site. We used to fish greenland halibut in 1000m of water N of there ...64N 55W ....went through Prins Christiansund once ... stunning passage S of Narsarsuaq . But there is a bit of traffic around Cape Farvel ...worst storm we ever encountered was SE of Cape Farvel in 2006 /Oct 12 -13 940mb and 32m/sec . We were all thinking that if things went against us , survival would be unlikely
I've gone back and forth on tying off to the plane. I think the raft would drift away pretty quickly even with a sea anchor, (which a lot of smaller rafts don't have) because the plane won't drift much at all. You'd have to be careful to make sure you can untie easily though. Hate to get dragged down if it sinks.
@@KerryDMcCauley Yah , for sure and make sure that knife is close at hand if the line must be severed. Staying close by is essential ....how far off shore were they from coast ??
Not sure where you are getting your info from. You said the Malibu has “almost 1000 mile “ range. I own a continental powered Malibu. It has way more range than that. With normal tanks it has more than 1600 nm at 15 gph. With my extended range tanks it has more than 1800 nm range (no wind).
Yes, I think. Unless the engine seized. There is also a line of thought out there that you should slow down enough to stop it which might be less drag. I'm not sure.
indeed, and god be blessed for that ! i just remember the sadness i felt after ditching a Chieftain in the Pacific. One moment you are riding high over the open seas , the next you are bobbling helplessly in an inner tube watching the beautiful machine that got you to that place, trying to figure out how you went from 200kts to zero in an eye blink! You are right, there is no way they could have had better circumstances to perform this maneuver!
@@KerryDMcCauley 1993 was ferrying the third of three Chieftains/Navajo out ofTahiti to Santa Monica. Overnight stop in Christmas Island then off to Hilo, the right engine gave up on me about three hours out. Was close to mtow , the left one started to gradually overheat , so i 2:57 ended up in a very shalow descent towards the surface . Had a comfortable fifteen minutes to chat with HNL and they did a great job sending help. First C130 showed up five hours later, (650nm south of Hilo), the second one the next afternoon with a 1000foot bulk carrier in trail they had managed to divert to pick us up! There was a small two way radio in the survival raft the CG dropped the first day, and i’ll always remember the first thing he said:” I don’t know how you did it, but we never looked for you. We just went where you said you were and found you!” A month later, I got a violation letter from the Faa for using an unapproved navigation system over the high seas ( GPS)!
if you send me an email address, i’ll send you a link to the rescue video shot from a C130 This was in 1993, but the image quality is still pretty good
Glad to watch your analysis of this one, Kerry. Like you, I hope we get more details about why the prop stopped turning. I have dreams of flying this one in my RV-8 one day, but I don't like swimming in cold water.
@@pirateatfourty I ferried a C177 A with bladder ( turtle pack ) tanks from Arkansas to Sweden , via the northern rout ! ! To whether risky !! The southern route is much more predictable , sometimes low clouds , like in this case ceiling 600 feed , but still more visibility then in Germany with CAVOK !!
Greetings from Buenos Aires. They were lucky indeed. Now, don´t understand why a high performance aircraft like the Malibu has (in this particular case) two bladed propeller.
Number of blades has little to do with efficiency. Most propellers are 82-85% efficient, but that variance is due to material limitations, not blade count. Wood props lower in the range, metal is higher. And composite can go either way. Especially a wood "natural" composite, ala MT, Catto. 6-bladed Griffons were the same efficiency as 4 bladed P-51H and a Cessna 180 2-blade is the same also. 84%.
@@EllipsisAircraft Pretty good info indeed. Thanks. Without being such specific, my guessing is a 3 bladed propeller is the optimus for high performance single engine aircraft.
@@danielsalvia6689 Three blades are easier to balance. As two blades are not a mirror-image of each other. Not only in mass, and blade profile: Their aerodynamic center is offset to the blades 1/4 chord, opposite each other. So the lift line acts 1/2 blade width apart. They work fine. But a three blade is probably a little easier to make run very smooth. Material limitations, as well as Reynolds-number concerns dictate how narrow the blade can be. Thus, how many blades an engine can have. Because you cannot simply add more blades of the same size (blade area, or solidity ratio) to an engine of the same hosepower.
2 POB on a 4h flight from goose to BGBW in a malibu … avgas in BGBW is so pricy … so you fill it up at „cheap“ goose up to the limit and refuel just the used trip fuel there on the way to BIRK malibu has 9h endurance with 2 POB with their preparation and performance a no brainer … so what you don‘t do in these regions is to not fill avgas where you can …
I was on duty when this happend - Air Greenland has a EC55 helo on SAR call in the south, but i was very happy with the CL60 and the Triton with a seahawk very VERY close to the splash site. They gave me a real time update as it unfolded.
The pilot,single engine plane did well landing on water intact great rescue effort 👍
Where is Air Greenland's helo stationed? Last time I was in Narsarsuaq I was told the closest helicopter was Nuuk. It's been a couple of years so hopefully that changed. Did they say why the Malibu was in trouble?
@@KerryDMcCauley In Narsarsuaq, but it is used for scheduled pax service, and has to return to Narsarsuaq and get ready for SAR (Maybe crew change, hoist operator fuel etc) Otherwise it is the Airbus SuperPuma out of Kangerlussuaq , that is on hot std by for SAR
@@sunsetlights100 He sure did! Good job all the way around!
@@KerryDMcCauley They did say, but company policies states that i cant elaborate on the incident.
Impressed with how well a Malibu floats
Good on the pilots for keeping the lower half of the air stair door closed.
They filled the forward cargo comp. With styrofoam!! ( My friends)
@@reinerressel975 Now why didn't I think of that!
@@KerryDMcCauley so now ,it begs the question , did the plane get salvaged, or a loss ? Thanks Kerry for the replies 👍
@@ChollaJJ I'm sure it's at the bottom of ocean now.
Flew Columbia from Narsasuaq to Goose Bay, and views there are so beautiful, it’s like another planet. They got so very lucky, in more than one sense.
Thanks for the video!
Your welcome!
Hello from Goose Bay.
Great outcome on this one.
N Atlantic tough spot for sure
It sure is
Lucky guys... and God showed the Danish rescuers the right way at the right time and put them in the right place. I was really surprised at the great resolution of the Challenger video equipment.
Super lucky! And if it's not on video, it didn't happen.
Prayers answered at the critical moment. Amen.
Glad it all went well for these guys. But the airport at Narsarsuaq is being replaced with a new airport about 30nm south west near the town of Qaqortoq. No more remote valley. Given that it's being built from scratch (versus the WWII vintage) I wonder what they can do, if anything, for it to be shut down by weather less often? But some day I'd love to see this part of the world, ideally flying.
Really? I haven't heard that. Might be a good thing!
thanks for sharing.
I'd love to make the flight someday but this episode show the risk involved... Fortunately a great outcome for theses folks. Thanks Kerry!
You bet You sjould make that rip someday if you can.
Take a good engine, or two. PT-6A, or two 6cyl pistons.
@@EllipsisAircraft The biggest mistake sits between the headphone , even a turbine didn’t help . In there case one of the turbines disintegrated .
@@markp3309 thousand’s of airplanes piston powered mostly crossing the Atlantic every year !!! A landing on water you can survive , very seldom on Forrest 30 m high or rocky terrain .
Lucky much? Perfect weather, dead calm water, and your friendly neighborhood SAR on the spot.
Better lucky than good!
@@wrp3621 SAR was luck the rest was good planning and not panicking
Love a happy ending ... in old movies even more, real life - and this story right up a screenplay writer's alley.
Tho how believable would be ... calm N Atlantic seas, daytime ditch, another plane near enough by to record video,
AND a big ol' navy boat, too?
Wouldn't even buy the storyline if it wasn't true - thank goodness big ATC guy in the sky it was/is.
And yeah, I'm those two I'm taking the long way from now on. ;-)
Truth is stranger than fiction.
Kerry, great video and information. Transatlantic crossing has been on my bucket list since I became a pilot. Currently a TBM7 pilot, who knows... maybe next summer :)
Despite the risk, I highly recommend it!
Fabulous video thanks for sharing.
What's the story with the 0² bottle behind you?
Funny, I didn't even know it was in frame. I set it there so I wouldn't forget to grab it to get filled because I've got a Queen Air trip coming up.......I forgot it.
perfect documentation for the insurance company...
Good point!
They can't argue with that footage!
OH BOY ALMOND JOY GLAD THEY MADE IT
@@johnfranklin4567 they keep calm and fly there plane up to Stand still !! Very good nerves !
I agree with everything you said except, I would NOT tie up to the plane. I get the reasoning however; you should have a beacon locator with you in your raft, and I would not risk puncturing a hole in the raft especially if you're in warm waters were sharks are very likely. When you hit the water its also likely you'll bend up your plane making jagged edges a likely possibility so for that reason I'd use the crappy ores if I have em, to stay close to the wreckage.
If possible if not the locator should aerve as a good finder. Great video.
That used to be my thought as well. But in doing research about ditching I've changed my mind. But not if there's a risk of puncture or if you can't untie easily.
Great outcome and water landing. Weather was no factor which could have been nasty. Rent the survival gear, its money well spent up there on that route.
No way I'd fly that rout without my survival gear.
Is that size raft normal for a Malibu size plane…..they seem to have had all things needed….. good decision to have for that route ….thanks 🤠👍
I always bring one that size on that route.
Will wait out on the fuel story but kudos to them as the good weather they experienced likely down to their ADM
They did have a raft though, pretty handy if rescue was far ahead. very sloppy of the danish jet to miss the landing. they had one job.
A 300kg pressurized sleek twin jet would be nicer to cross the atlantic in.
It's impressive that the malibu is floating though. A lot of planes can't wait to sink. a well made plane can ditch in the ocean and float for days so you don't need a raft. In the frigid atlantic that's handy.
THEY HAD ONE JOB! GET THE DITCHING!! I'm sure they were kicking themselves for missing it but it would be hard to time it in a jet.
Can you make a video on more crossings flight planning and explaining HF radio work and reporting points thank you
Will do!
I flew that route several times aboard light planes (although not as many as this video's author!) I was conveying from the USA to Europe, and one time vice-versa... to Oshkosh AirVenture, precisely! The possibility of ditching is always a risk, especially in a single-engine plane like that Malibu; so much so that it is mandatory that all occupants of a small aircraft, on that route, wear exposure-protection suits (just like the one shown on the picture) at all time. An inflatable lifeboat, as well as a floating ELT (Emergency Landing Transmitter), and a few other things are also required equipment. When you leave Canada, the authorities generally check that you are properly equipped. Outside Canadian airports, this check is often not done, unfortunately (never was it checked in my experience in Greenland, nor Iceland, nor Scotland). The Canadians take that quite seriously; hat off to them!
The pilot is also in constant radio contact with the competent authorities... except for a stretch of ocean further east than the tip of Greenland, when radio contact is lost to aircraft flying not high enough (at least it was then... maybe that has changed...). But even then, you switch to the air-to-air frequency (123.45 MHz back when I flew that route... which was easy to remember, now 122.75), and you have plenty of airliner crews to chat with! You are never alone up there! And those guys in the Malibu were quite obviously not! It is reassuring to know that, should a problem occur, a message of distress could always be relayed!
As to the prop being stopped in this particular incident, it does not say ANYTHING of the probable cause of engine failure, because the pilot certainly feathered it as soon as power was lost, as the Malibu is obviously fitted with a controllable-pitch prop. A feathered prop, contrary to a wind-milling one, substantially extends gliding range, or time in the air as in this incident.
One more comment on the two routes you presented, as well as to your comments about the uncertainty of the weather in those regions. Narsarsuaq is prone to quick and unforeseen fogging... and should it happen, you basically have no alternative. Søndre Strømfjord, at the contrary, benefits from a very sheltered micro-climate. Not to say that the weather can't get naughty up there, but the forecast is much more dependable... always spot on in my (limited) experience. It also benefits from a much longer runway, and an easier and safer IFR approach, should it be needed. At the time, air traffic was still handled by the USAF, and those guys could give you a radar-guided approach right down to the numbers! I personally have NEVER chosen the Narsarsuaq route, even if it is shorter overall (not the over-water stretch, as you rightly pointed out). One last advantage of the northern route: the impressive crossing of the Greenland ice sheet, and the stop at Kulusuk, which also offers great sightseeing of glaciers and of calving or recently calved icebergs in the fjords around! A piece of advice though: you'd better have a thick wad of cash (and only cash, at least then) if you need fuel at Kulusuk, as it was available only by the drum-full (and to be pumped with a hand pump!)... and at an outrageous price!!! But things have probably changed... I probably sound like a ranting old man! 😉
All good points, especially about the cost of fuel in Kulusuk! If you only need 5 gallons from the last 55 gallon drum you're paying for the whole barrel. As far as the prop being feathered, I'm 90% sure this was a piston Malibu so you can't feather the prop. That leads me to believe that either the engine seized up or they got slow enough to stop it, probably on purpose thinking that a stopped propeller is less drag than a windmilling one. Just speculating there. Thanks for watching!
@@KerryDMcCauley When I crossed the pond for the first time, back in 1991, I was ferrying the Seneca III I had just bought two weeks prior in Baltimore, flying it to its new home in Geneva... and my IFR ticket was only 2 days old. So, I had a co-pilot who happened to be my IFR instructor, who had volunteered to tag along. In Kulusuk, she supervised the fueling, while I went to the barrack which was then the airport's office to pay the fees. When I came back to the plane, I found out that she had started pumping from a second drum, and had filled the tanks to the brim... the whole of 4 or 5 gallons, as a matter of fact! I was out of my mind, as the previous evening, we had the two of us together carefully planned the flight, and calculated the fuel required, and had agreed that a single drum was more than enough. But, actually, she proved to be a hopeless and fearful pilot the minute we left her local area of Maryland... and fair weather! I remember her panicking, as flying pilot, on an IFR approach to Iqualuit in blowing snow (in August!!!)... I, the freshly minted IFR pilot had to take over and complete the approach!
We landed in Reykjavik with half-full tanks... and those marginal 4-5 gallons cost me something close to $800 of 1991, if my memory serves me well!!!
I have some flight hours on a Malibu, but a turboprop one. So, I had assumed ALL Malibus had a full-feathering prop. You could be right.... but I have a slight problem believing that such a sophisticated plane wouldn't have a full-fathering prop, even in a piston version. It DOES extend glide range significantly, should sh.t hit the fan... and that is worth something in a single-engine!
@@st-ex8506 The good old days! My first low approach ever was into St. Johns was on my first ferry trip crossing back in December 1989. Low clouds, blowing snow, high winds at night. Welcome to ferry flying!
@@KerryDMcCauley BUT that was December. When in Iqualuit on that first ferry of mine, we had a blizzard and an approach to near minimums... in August!
@@st-ex8506 Gotta love the far north!
Can a Malibu feather its prop? We have a raft for our trawler. It has a floating 100' banner that we can deploy to make locating the raft easier.
No, the Malibu can't feather its prop.
Don't know about tying off to the Malibu Kerry ...those rafts should have a " sea anchor " which should keep the pilots and raft fairly close to the crash site.
We used to fish greenland halibut in 1000m of water N of there ...64N 55W ....went through Prins Christiansund once ... stunning passage S of Narsarsuaq . But there is a bit of traffic around Cape Farvel ...worst storm we ever encountered was SE of Cape Farvel in 2006 /Oct 12 -13 940mb and 32m/sec . We were all thinking that if things went against us , survival would be unlikely
I've gone back and forth on tying off to the plane. I think the raft would drift away pretty quickly even with a sea anchor, (which a lot of smaller rafts don't have) because the plane won't drift much at all. You'd have to be careful to make sure you can untie easily though. Hate to get dragged down if it sinks.
@@KerryDMcCauley Yah , for sure and make sure that knife is close at hand if the line must be severed. Staying close by is essential ....how far off shore were they from coast ??
@@erichinansen4238 I don't think they were very far from shore.
Did the ship hoist the plane out for them?
I doubt it.
@@KerryDMcCauleywould you bring a c414a over from florida to austria?
@@industrieundtechnik1761 Possibly, do you know when? I'm pretty busy until late fall.
Floating pretty high in the water? No Fuel?
Even if they didn't run out of fuel by that point in the flight the tanks would be pretty empty.
Do you still do any Ferrying flights Kerry?
Yes, I'm not totally retired yet.
I wonder if the large ship could have put a line on the plane and tow it to shore or if it had a lifting device to bring the plane on board the ship.
I was thinking of the same thing as I was watching the video.
They could have at least tried!
Been there!
BZ to the Royal Danish Navy 🎉
Indeed!
Not sure where you are getting your info from. You said the Malibu has “almost 1000 mile “ range. I own a continental powered Malibu. It has way more range than that. With normal tanks it has more than 1600 nm at 15 gph. With my extended range tanks it has more than 1800 nm range (no wind).
I don't remember where I got that number but it did seem low. Thanks for providing a more accurate number!
where you gonna put the fuel tanks? it only has a 400 mile range roughly/ lol
would best glide be fast enough to keep a two bladed prop spinning a fuel starved six banger all the way down?
Yes, I think. Unless the engine seized. There is also a line of thought out there that you should slow down enough to stop it which might be less drag. I'm not sure.
Was it feathered?
@@joedemers5480 Can't feather a piston.
800 nm? In my world it’s 675 direct line from CYYR to BGBW
800 miles, 675 NM
one more thing i will be in my challenger 605 lol
That's the way to cross the North Atlantic!
never a good feeling to lose an aircraft
True, but at least they went home to their famillies.
indeed, and god be blessed for that !
i just remember the sadness i felt after
ditching a Chieftain in the Pacific. One moment
you are riding high over the open seas , the next
you are bobbling helplessly in an inner tube watching
the beautiful machine that got you to that place, trying
to figure out how you went from 200kts to zero in an
eye blink! You are right, there is no way they could have
had better circumstances to perform this maneuver!
@@dommoureaux Wow! That would be crazy! If you don't mind me asking, what happened?
@@KerryDMcCauley 1993 was ferrying the third of three Chieftains/Navajo out ofTahiti to Santa Monica. Overnight stop in Christmas Island then off to Hilo, the right engine gave up on me about three hours out. Was close to mtow , the left one started to gradually overheat , so i 2:57 ended up in a very shalow descent towards the surface . Had a comfortable fifteen minutes to chat with HNL and they did a great job sending help. First C130 showed up five hours later, (650nm south of Hilo), the second one the next afternoon with a 1000foot bulk carrier in trail they had managed to divert to pick us up! There was a small two way radio in the survival raft the CG dropped the first day, and i’ll always remember the first thing he said:” I don’t know how you did it, but we never looked for you.
We just went where you said you were and found you!” A month later, I got a violation letter from the Faa for using an unapproved navigation system over the high seas ( GPS)!
if you send me an email address, i’ll send you a link to the rescue video shot from a C130
This was in 1993, but the image quality is still pretty good
If I was crossing that much water I would plot a course closest to current marine traffic shown on the various live maritime traffic sites.
I've crossed that stretch of water many many times and have only seen a ship once. Just not that much traffic between Greenland and Canada.
@@KerryDMcCauley acoustic beacon for submarines or floor hydrophones ! Crazy idea I know. Would be shocking to have a sub suddenly surface nearby.
@@jonasbaine3538 Having a sub surface next to my raft would be convenient.
Glad to watch your analysis of this one, Kerry. Like you, I hope we get more details about why the prop stopped turning. I have dreams of flying this one in my RV-8 one day, but I don't like swimming in cold water.
That would be a fun trip!
@@dermick I hope the two will tell us ! Some days.
okay i will count on you to take the super stearman lol no?
That dumb plane thinks it's a boat! lol
hey you wanna ferry a super stearman to italy? and stinson reliant?i wont do it but you seeem like the kind of guy who likes adventure lol
Don't tempt me.
@@pirateatfourty I ferried a C177 A with bladder ( turtle pack ) tanks from Arkansas to Sweden , via the northern rout ! ! To whether risky !!
The southern route is much more predictable , sometimes low clouds , like in this case ceiling 600 feed , but still more visibility then in Germany with CAVOK !!
For a Piper Malibu 800 miles should be easy.
You would think.
Greetings from Buenos Aires. They were lucky indeed. Now, don´t understand why a high performance aircraft like the Malibu has (in this particular case) two bladed propeller.
My prop shop guy said 3 bladed propellers are more efficient. Not sure that's true.
@@KerryDMcCauley He is right. Moreover, a four bladed prop is cetainly more efficient as well ...!
Number of blades has little to do with efficiency.
Most propellers are 82-85% efficient, but that variance is due to material limitations, not blade count. Wood props lower in the range, metal is higher. And composite can go either way. Especially a wood "natural" composite, ala MT, Catto.
6-bladed Griffons were the same efficiency as 4 bladed P-51H and a Cessna 180 2-blade is the same also. 84%.
@@EllipsisAircraft Pretty good info indeed. Thanks. Without being such specific, my guessing is a 3 bladed propeller is the optimus for high performance single engine aircraft.
@@danielsalvia6689 Three blades are easier to balance. As two blades are not a mirror-image of each other. Not only in mass, and blade profile: Their aerodynamic center is offset to the blades 1/4 chord, opposite each other. So the lift line acts 1/2 blade width apart. They work fine. But a three blade is probably a little easier to make run very smooth.
Material limitations, as well as Reynolds-number concerns dictate how narrow the blade can be. Thus, how many blades an engine can have. Because you cannot simply add more blades of the same size (blade area, or solidity ratio) to an engine of the same hosepower.
wish they would have picked up the plane and salvaged it, since they had a ship with a chopper
Don't know where they would've put it though.
Not their day to die.
Thanks but no thanks. I’d rather sit my ass in 777 sipping champagne crossing Atlantic than sitting in a single.
That trip is not for everyone.
@@KerryDMcCauley you can say that again.
I'm going with the "ran out of gas" scenario...
Would the prop not windmill if they ran out of fuel.
2 POB on a 4h flight from goose to BGBW in a malibu …
avgas in BGBW is so pricy … so you fill it up at „cheap“ goose up to the limit and refuel just the used trip fuel there on the way to BIRK
malibu has 9h endurance with 2 POB
with their preparation and performance a no brainer …
so what you don‘t do in these regions is to not fill avgas where you can …
Just me Or does this story seem a little sus?
If I was going to fake a crash for insurance I probably wouldn't do it in the North Atlantic. Brrrrrr.
Just you.
You’re so behind the drag curve on this story. Others already talked about it - old news.
Who cares? He’s got tons of experience ferrying and can give a good analysis of this.
I don't think anyone else who has covered this has actually flown it.
Is being first important? Go away. In drag.
@@grayrabbit2211Exactly, a different perspective from an expert. Greetings from Cape Town.
Mate! Get a life.....
Show us the maintenance records… I have never seen “just a coincidence”. Owner’s negligence
Hard to say what happened because as of now they're not saying.