Warbird Information Exchange

These shots are from Wednesday, June 24th before she left Washington.

http://www.fighttoflyphoto.com/pby-6a-catalina

And here's the video I have of it in its previous colors as a water bomber.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmosWQzGH0M

Whatever the reason, it looked like the air crew got her down safely without destroying her. The recovery crew is a separate deal all together. Cant't figure out why they called a company used to salvaging ships to recover a downed aircraft....

Hopefully there was an insurance policy somewhere for the film production.

The cause for the structural failure could be due to just about anything. Previous attempts to drag it out of the surf weakened the structure integrity, there was still water in it, improper lifting, the surf beating on it for 4 days....who knows at this point??? I'm sure there is a video of the salvage evolution somewhere.

Here's a couple of Youtube's posted on July 1st and 2nd.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8blNgvsun8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g4g-h54Y-s

I'll probably get flamed for this,


I love vintage warbirds as much as the next member in here. I was distressed to see the PBY had suffered an issue and was stuck in the surf zone near the shore. I'm heartbroken to see the aircraft was destroyed in the lift. But I'd be willing to bet had they successfully got the PBY on the barge that it wouldn't have flown again.

Saltwater as you know is extremely corrosive to metals. The videos show waves washing over the cockpit. The wave action was pounding that plane into the ocean floor for 4 days. In the 1980's I scuba dived a Cessna 172 that did a water landing in the surf zone off San Diego. The aircraft was intact and floating, although partially submerged. But when the lifeguards tried to tow it outside the surf zone, it sank. When I dove it just a few days later, it had disintegrated. Nothing but pieces.

So I'd be more than willing to bet there was structural damage. You basically would have to rebuild the fuselage from scratch. Is that economically feasible? How much money did Boeing spend to re-restore the Flying Cloud after it got dunked in the bay in Seattle? They pulled it out immediately and had to do some intensive work to get all the saltwater out of that aircraft.

Just my 2 cents

MOD warning: play nice or sanctions will follow. Thread cleaned.

_________________
I'm Batman

Wow, what a sad turn of events. Must be heartbreaking for the crew and everyone who was involved getting her flying again back in Washington. I hope what was salvaged will be of some use, either as parts or static display items. Atleast no one was injured during all this.

I haven't seen any preliminary reports posted on the FAA website, is this something that they might investigate? Would it be some kind of maritime incident? Just curious to know if the incident will be investigated to determine what the happened (taking on water) and the airframe failure. It is certainly outside the realm of the more mainstream accidents.

_________________
Share your story: Rutgers Oral History Archive http://oralhistory.rutgers.edu/

To me the worst part of this is twofold -

According to news reports, it was floating offshore most of the day Thursday for more filming, so the breach wasn't bad enough they couldn't keep up with it using pumps.

Second, the images I've seen of the airplane in slings don't look like what the PBY hoisting photos I've seen and as was mentioned earlier, Atlanta Aircraft Salvage (who led the effort with Resolve Marine providing the barge, not the "expertise") requested the hoisting diagrams so they had the proper lifting information. To me, this says that either AAS or Resolve's Crane Operator either didn't trust the diagrams, didn't want to properly setup to do it, or just were in a hurry.

I'm almost certain that there will be an OSHA incident investigation (that's not considered a "successful lift") and I'm sure there will be an internal one as well within AAS and Resolve, so we may find out eventually what happened, but the break points are more in line with an improper hoist than actual existing damage.

Okay a few talking points:
1) Wouldn't Connie Edwards have been the ideal person to hire for technical advice for this film? WHo did they consult?
2) The airplane wasn't having an emergency, the pilots chose to put it into the water. It was in perfect airworthy shape a week ago.
3) Were the pilots current in sea operations and how many water landings had they done in type the last 90 days? (Just curious since the PBY-6A wasn't seaworthy.)
4) Because the PBY-6A had a gross weight of more than 12,500 lbs., it is required to have a Type Rating for the PBY and an ATP. The PIC would have had these and the SIC would have to have his currency sign offs as well. Plyus this was a commercial endeavor so that increases the requirements. Who signed them off for water landings?
5) A lot of work went into getting that 70 year old plane airworthy and ready to work. Did the owner or mechanics tell the pilots that is was seaworthy? Most old floats and amphibs leak like crazy unless they have had a lot of repair. Would it have been a good idea to put it in water even with the drain plugs installed?
6) Are the drain plugs and other sea equipment on the walk-around preflight inspection and before take off checklist? Wh gave the green light to risk the aircraft?
7) Why would you put an unpainted bare aluminum flying boat in salt water? The salt gets into the rivets, overlapping skins, etc. A death sentence eventually to the aircraft"s airworthiness.
Did the owner know how his aircraft was going to be used?
9) Did the studio buy the aircraft with the intention of ruining it? Maybe it was cheaper than hiring the special effects guys.

I'm not responding to your point-by-point issue because you demonstrate a general lack of understanding of what this aircraft was doing and why it ended up where it is (most especially #2). I would really hope that you read this and the other threads on this accident PRIOR to making any further responses because you're asking the wrong questions and making assumptions that have been patently proven to be false in your attempt to place blame instead of just understanding what happened.

2) Correct, it was supposed to land in the water for shooting. Problems did not arise until after it landed on the water.
7) There isn't a square inch of bare aluminum on that plane. It was painted silver, right over top the previous layer. Even on the inside it was recovered with white paint.

Nice video of the Catalina beached can be seen in this article. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/salvag ... 1715722705

_________________
Share your story: Rutgers Oral History Archive http://oralhistory.rutgers.edu/