Canon or Cessna, which comes first? I owned the aircraft in this accident report for over 20 yrs. and have been in photography for over 50 yrs. I would never even think of holding a...

jrprendy Loc: Superior WI.

I owned the aircraft in this accident report for over 20 yrs. and have been in photography for over 50 yrs. I would never even think of holding a camera and lens weighing over 5 lbs, out the side window while low and slow. I feel sorry for the pilots family a wife and 3 kids.

Attached file:
(Download)

le boecere

jrprendy wrote:

I owned the aircraft in this accident report for over 20 yrs. and have been in photography for over 50 yrs. I would never even think of holding a camera and lens weighing over 5 lbs, out the side window while low and slow. I feel sorry for the pilots family a wife and 3 kids.

http://danbaileyphoto.com/blog/brand-new-aerial-mountain-photos-from-alaska/

SteveR Loc: Michigan

He wouldn't necessarily have been going low and slow. Those farms are probably pretty big. My Grandparents' farm in Kansas was half a section.

duane klipping Loc: Bristow iowa

I am not seeing where in the report it says the accident stemmed from flying low and hanging out a window nor does it say anything about his family. Are There more facts you have and not shared?

SteveR Loc: Michigan

My cousin was a missionary pilot for 25-30 years....in Haiti and then Africa. He was nothing if not overly cautious. When visiting with us at one time we were taking he and his wife out to dinner. We only had to go about 3 miles, but my gas tank was on 1/4 tank. He about had a hissy fit.

I will say one thing. His over cautiousness got him through his flying career safely.

Senior Photog

I am a private pilot and professional photographer. Have over 40 years of shooting aerial photography. I have never flown and photographed alone. I would have a pilot with at least a commercial
rating flying the plane. Flying the aircraft was the number 1 priority. My shots were
secondary. Over that time period every flight was successful and safe. I feel sorry for this man and his family.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

From a pilot's point of view, (mine) it's not possible to know why he flew into the river, and the preliminary report doesn't give an indication of the reason for the crash. What I do find interesting is that the propellor looks to be undamaged, yet the engine cowling looks totally torn off. That would, to me, indicate that the plane impacted the water in a level attitude, then nosed over. It also indicates that the engine may have possible quit prior to impact, indicating a possible engine failure. Water landings with a wheeled airplane never have a happy ending. And as a pilot, I wouldn't go out and take photos while flying by myself. I have a friend who owns a plane up here, and he has it equipped with a number of GoPro or other similar cameras, in order to record his flights. He then downloads the videos to his computer and extracts still from them. Much safter than taking pictures with a handheld camera while flying the plane. It'll be interesting to see the final report on this crash.

Senior Photog

I have a private ticket but haven't flown for a number of years. Still waiting for a good lottery hit.
The leading edge of the wings indicate a
very hard hit. Is it possible that the prop is in that good of shape because of it's material? I didn't see major damage to the wheel fairings.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

Senior Photog wrote:

I have a private ticket but haven't flown for a number of years. Still waiting for a good lottery hit.
The leading edge of the wings indicate a
very hard hit. Is it possible that the prop is in that good of shape because of it's material? I didn't see major damage to the wheel fairings.

It's a bit of a mystery, to me. I do know, though, that had it impacted the water nose down or while the prop was still turning, it would have been bent, especially the tips would have been curled back. But I can't account for the relatively light damage to the wheel pants. I think, maybe, the plane contacted the water at a very low speed, then nosed over. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

Shutterbugsailer Loc: Staten Island NY (AKA Cincinnati by the Sea)

Senior Photog wrote:

I am a private pilot and professional photographer. Have over 40 years of shooting aerial photography. I have never flown and photographed alone. I would have a pilot with at least a commercial
rating flying the plane. Flying the aircraft was the number 1 priority. My shots were
secondary. Over that time period every flight was successful and safe. I feel sorry for this man and his family.

I read the downloaded information. It appeared that he was being paid to take aerial photographs. As such, he didn't want to hire a professional photographer or pilot and share the profits. He could have avoided that and the crash by either getting a recreational pilot to fly for free while he took the shots, or gotten a hobbyist photographer to take the shots while he flew the plane. This second option would probably have been the better choice. I bet hundreds of photography enthusiasts would have jumped at the chance to ride in a small plane and shoot landscapes and buildings from out the window

Senior Photog

Many of my jobs were probably between 500 and 1,000 ft. Trying to stack the odds in my favor, I always had a pilot with a Commercial rating. I wanted to take the shots for many reasons. I might be in the minority but we never had an incident.
A good preflight is also critical.

Amielee Loc: Eastern Washington State

Real mystery. The undercarriage seems to be relatively intact. Wings, Cockpit and engine cowling heavily damaged but prop undamaged. Plane is nose down in water and fuselage is upright. Does not seem that plane hit the water and flipped over because it is upright. Stall spin maybe. Hit the water inverted then flipped, maybe. Final accident report should solve mystery.

Senior Photog

Whenever they can't figure it out they use the stock answer: 'Pilot Error'.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

Amielee wrote:

Real mystery. The undercarriage seems to be relatively intact. Wings, Cockpit and engine cowling heavily damaged but prop undamaged. Plane is nose down in water and fuselage is upright. Does not seem that plane hit the water and flipped over because it is upright. Stall spin maybe. Hit the water inverted then flipped, maybe. Final accident report should solve mystery.

Possibly, but the fact that the prop is in the horizontal position and undamaged (apparently) would suggest that the engine was not running and the prop not spinning at the time of impact. Another possibility is that the plane hit the water inverted, then flipped over on its nose, suggesting a low altitude stall/spin situation

jerrylh Loc: Texas

I am a commercial pilot with over 3,000 hours in 25 different airplanes and was on a board of a major aircraft company that evaluated wrecks along with the official inspection. My guess is he stalled the plane and it went nose down, then into the water based on the wing and prop spinner damage. The plane hit hard to cause this damage. The damage looks like the plane hit a rock, but water can be almost as hard as a rock to a stalled airplane.
Recovery from an accidental stall in this airplane would take a minimum of 400 feet, probably more, because he had to adjust himself, get rid of the camera to start the recovery. The stalled airplane probably hit the water in less than 10 seconds, rocks fall really fast.