PBY tanker 85 broken in half during recovery!!!

[flightsimer]

If you want to blame someone, the owner/operators are who you should be blaming! How do you forget to put in plugs when you know you are going to be landing in the water? It was the film crew who were the ones who saved it to begin with as they were the ones who went down and installed the plugs.

IMO there are two evolutions involved here...both are different issues and results. Of course if you didn't have the first you wouldn't have the second. However the cards are dealt and you have to play what's in your hand.

1. "If" the hull plugs were indeed left out and a water landing resulted in the sinking....that is evolution #1 (E-1). Also, has it been confirmed the hull plugs were not installed or is that media speculation/rumor? I would be shocked if a qual'd PBY pilot or CP would not check those on a preflight or walk-around for an upcoming water landing. It's possibly they were missed but that would be a "Wow!" revelation IMO.

2. It is what it was....the plane took on water for whatever reason and ended up in the surf and a recovery attempt(s) was/were made.......evolution #2 (E-2).

At this point, we can theorize about what exactly led to the sinking (E-1) and who owns it. Probably need to see the official reports for that.

IMO....there is not much theory on the subsequent recovery operation (E-2)......the plane was in one piece when it was beached and the various salvage ops started. IMO the salvage company or the on-scene person in charge with go/no-go authority of the different salvage attempts owns the results. The salvage buck has to stop somewhere.

With all the above said.....a lot of questions and not many answers at this point. Hopefully more details will come out in the near future that will shed light on this situation.

Yes, some of have plugs were not installed.

http://www.gulfcoastnewstoday.com/area_ ... b15d3.html

[davidgeorge212]

https://youtu.be/noTE5vFeI6A

[Dan Jones]

No video yet of how they killed it?

[GARY HILTON]

Wow! at least I'm not the only one that kills old warbirds.... A herd of hillbillies could have floated her out with truck inner tubes and a bicycle tire pump and a Missouri mule....sheesh!

[JOMiller]

Does anyone know the name of the insurance company, that
presumably now owns the remains??

[P38]

Was it not possible to float the plane close to shore and then wait for the tide to go out, then recover from land at low tide? The surf looks very mild in the videos and those gulf coast beaches are usually shallow with a gentle slope.

[CAPFlyer]

I think that imgur link is going to be the end of the salvage company I'm afraid. Those photos clearly show use of a spreader bar and slings to lift the plane out of the water. I've never heard of that being an acceptable way to lift a seaplane or amphibian out of the water. It's always done using lift eyes attached to the wing spar, and every photo you find online of PBYs being hoisted show that. I go back and place 100% of the blame on the recovery team for this. What's worse for them is that Noel and the insurance company may have a good case for negligence on the part of the salvage team because it has been publically stated that they reached out to other PBY operator(s) for the lifting and rigging information prior to attempting recovery. The fuselage was cleanly cut in the areas that the sling was attached as well as can be seen in the photo of the tail being lifted out, which only hurts them more.

Also, I still haven't seen anything that says the hull plugs weren't installed. I see a 3rd person account to a newspaper of an interested party to one of the people who has every reason to make her husband be seen in the best light. It also ignores the fact that the statements from the film company and those in the area at the time clearly stated that the aircraft had made several water landings prior to the incident (including news video of 2 separate landings in the link posted earlier in this thread). If the hull plugs weren't installed, then they would've taken on water with the first landing and noticed it. That it took several landings suggests more that there was a failure in service, not a failure to install if it was the hull plugs.

[dirtysidedown430]

Drain plugs in or out, got to think they were in. It's a 70 year old airplane, part of the nose hull might have failed. It's a 70 year old airplane. The airplane was made to be lifted out of water, did salvage crew know to rig it, maybe yes maybe no. Its a 70 year old airplane. I am sure that with time much more info will surface, but its a 70 old airplane.

[Dan Jones]

Drain plugs in or out, got to think they were in. It's a 70 year old airplane, part of the nose hull might have failed. It's a 70 year old airplane. The airplane was made to be lifted out of water, did salvage crew know to rig it, maybe yes maybe no. Its a 70 year old airplane. I am sure that with time much more info will surface, but its a 70 old airplane.

I wouldn't put much stock in the fault being that it's a seventy year old airplane. A PBY is a tough, tough airplane. If I remember correctly there isn't a single AD on a stock PBY airframe, and the design is what, 79 years old? And it was approved for open ocean landings. I never flew boats in my career but I spent alot of years flying floatplanes for a living and even something as innocuous sounding as a three foot swell is still a very big deal in a Beaver or an Otter, and has been known to bust the front spreader bar of a Twin Otter's floats, so an airplane approved for open ocean landings is one tough son-of-a-b*tch, even seventy years on. Where the Canso is famously weak though is in it's nose gear doors and several have been sunk by having the doors stove in or badly sprung on landing or on a botched take off. A friend of mine flew them commercially years ago and he said if it gets porpoising on takeoff she'll put her nose under on the third cycle and shove the doors in, so they do have some interesting idiosyncrasies. Not to lay any blame but I'd be curious how current the crew were with full stop water landings. Personally I had a bad feeling when I saw the first pictures of her on the beach, but I figured it would be the ocean that got her when the wind and waves kicked up before she got salvaged. Myself, I can't quite rationalize how the fuselage was cut so cleanly aft of the trailing edge of the wing if the proper lifting procedure and slings were used. And seeing the tail being lifted with a noose like that... It kinda reminds me of a friend of mine who lifted a Mooney last year by "choking" the rear fuselage with a sling. That added a lot of costs to the repair bill for the gear up landing.

[CoastieJohn]

I think that imgur link is going to be the end of the salvage company I'm afraid. Those photos clearly show use of a spreader bar and slings to lift the plane out of the water. I've never heard of that being an acceptable way to lift a seaplane or amphibian out of the water. It's always done using lift eyes attached to the wing spar, and every photo you find online of PBYs being hoisted show that. I go back and place 100% of the blame on the recovery team for this. What's worse for them is that Noel and the insurance company may have a good case for negligence on the part of the salvage team because it has been publically stated that they reached out to other PBY operator(s) for the lifting and rigging information prior to attempting recovery. The fuselage was cleanly cut in the areas that the sling was attached as well as can be seen in the photo of the tail being lifted out, which only hurts them more.

Also, I still haven't seen anything that says the hull plugs weren't installed. I see a 3rd person account to a newspaper of an interested party to one of the people who has every reason to make her husband be seen in the best light. It also ignores the fact that the statements from the film company and those in the area at the time clearly stated that the aircraft had made several water landings prior to the incident (including news video of 2 separate landings in the link posted earlier in this thread). If the hull plugs weren't installed, then they would've taken on water with the first landing and noticed it. That it took several landings suggests more that there was a failure in service, not a failure to install if it was the hull plugs.

I'm still wondering about the plug thing too. I would like to see an official confirmation one way or another.

I suspect there is a PBY manual that shows how to pick up a PBY. There could be more than one acceptable way to pickup one up. I have a 1944/45 PBY-5A Pilots Manual but it doesn't show how to pick one up. Would probably need the PBY maintenance manual.

The Flicker Library has quite a few pics showing sea planes being hoisted up and some towed by the tail attachment point up the sea plane ramp.....including PBY's IMO....if it was possible, towing it by the tail would seem like a good way to tow it thru the surf and up the beach just to get dry feet.


Great pics of the PBY sitting on the ice cap after intentionally landing wheels up (several times!) during the PN9E rescue saga in Greenland. Very impressive aviating. They were already posted here on WIX. The J2F-4 Duck also did the same thing twice.

[Fouga23]

Those photos clearly show use of a spreader bar and slings to lift the plane out of the water. I've never heard of that being an acceptable way to lift a seaplane or amphibian out of the water. It's always done using lift eyes attached to the wing spar, and every photo you find online of PBYs being hoisted show that. The fuselage was cleanly cut in the areas that the sling was attached as well as can be seen in the photo of the tail being lifted out, which only hurts them more..

And in the images before the lift you can clearly see it float. Complete and without any real damage above the waterline. Had they towed it to a shallow or harbour, or lifted it per manual, it would probably still be in one piece.

[cooper9411]

Coulda, woulda, shoulda! Just plane (no pun intended) sucks!

[eze240]

I know it's a bit negative, but, I think a lawsuit will come out of this.....the owners and/or the insurance people will probably sue the salvagers for botching the recovery and presumably the movie company, for calling the salvagers.....this will go on in court for several years, while the remains sit in storage.
By the time all this is done, there won't be much left worth salvaging, having been in salt water, not washed off, etc....

[sandiego89]

Agree eze. It would be an interesting legal case, and likely drawn out for some time. Salvage contracts are often written with a no fault/no guarantee clause- basically the salvor will attempt a recovery but is not responsbile for any damage. Much like a tow truck pulling your car out of the ditch- they won't hook up until you sign on the dotted line. Could get into all sorts of legalize with having to show negligence, due care, etc, which may in fact be the case (especially if they used lifting slings in the wrong places) but proving that in court, and around the contract is another manner.... Salvors are not inclined to do anything until the contract is signed and funds are obligated. Just my experience with (vessel) salvage.

I too would like more info on the drain plugs- the article talkes about good samaritans trying to plug the "holes", but that could mean all sorts of stuff.

Dan, interesting on the histortical "stoving in" on the nose gear bay. Is the compartment supposed to stay dry, or is some leakage normal? I imagine any stoving in would then compromise the rest of the wheel well with high pressure water?

[Matt Gunsch]

The nose gear doors on a PBY have always been a weak spot on water landings. If the door gets hit too hard, they can fail, sometimes with ugly results. The CAF PBY that crashed in the gulf was caused by a low pass over the water with a in advertant touching of the water, unfortunately it was on the nose gear doors, the doors imploded and the plane broke up because of the overpressure.
In this case the plane was lost because of idiots