Close

Member Login

Logging In
Invalid username or password.
Incorrect Login. Please try again.

not a member? sign-up now!

Signing up could earn you gear and it helps to keep offensive content off of our site.

Crash of Sightseeing Homebuilt Flight Raises Questions

By Robert Goyer / Published: Jan 24, 2012
Rate it! 50% or 50%

The crash of a sightseeing plane just off the coast of Honduras on Jan. 11 that was reported on by NBC’s Today show on Monday raised questions here at Flying that the NBC report did not address.

Andy Atkins, his wife Jenny and four-year-old son Logan, the story reported, were on an air tour of the island of Roatan near Honduras when, the story claims,  “disaster struck: The engine cut out and the seaplane crashed into the water.”

The pilot, identified on the NBC video only as Mr. Brown, pulled Andy Atkins from the submerged airplane, and told Atkins, while the two bobbed in the water next to the submerged aircraft, that the floatplane had lost an engine. Brown and Atkins dove back down and were able to pull Jenny Atkins and their son from the submerged airplane. All four on board survived the crash.

The airplane shown in the NBC spot is an Air Cam, a twin-engine kit airplane that is configured typically to carry two occupants in a tandem-seating configuration. The Air Cam in the footage is outfitted with straight floats (as opposed to amphibious floats) and with a third seat. There have been a few Air Cams modified to carry three occupants inline—one that operates in the United States reportedly gives “free” rides after passengers pay for a boat ride out to the ramp.

The accident airplane was apparently a three-place modification of an Air Cam, in which the owner puts an additional seat and restraint in an area that as originally an open baggage area. Lockwood Aircraft owner Phil Lockwood told Flying that prospective customers will sometimes ask him about creating a third seat in an Air Cam and he tells them "without exception" that such a modification is not recommended, as it encourages pilots to overload the aircraft. Because the Air Cam is an amateur-built kit, however, there's nothing in the regulations to prevent customers from modifying a kit in any way that they wanted, regardless of what Lockwood says.

Reports are that the accident Air Cam was operated by Bay Island Airways, which advertises sightseeing tours in Roatan. Its two Air Cams are outfitted with three seats and three seat belts. How a fourth occupant could have been carried is not known. Bay Island Airways could not be reached for comment and its website is down.

So, why would the loss of an engine in an Air Cam cause a crash? And why would a float plane “crash” into the water in light seas to begin with? One eyewitness reported that the Air Cam was flying very low and a wing “clipped” the water, causing the crash. Whether that sequence of events, if accurately described, was related to an engine failure or not is unknown.

As outfitted normally, the Air Cam is an excellent single-engine flyer. Its engines are so close together that there’s little asymmetrical thrust. With a very heavy load, Lockwood said, the pilot would have had trouble maintaining altitude but would not have a hard time maintaining directional control, even if the craft were heavily loaded. Why the loss of an engine would necessitate anything but an uneventful water landing on the floats, remains a mystery.

Lockwood also commented that on the video one of the floats is submerged, indicated that it had been damaged. Whether that damage as a result of a hard landing (a possibility) or it had been damaged previously is yet another question in this mysterious crash that has yet to be answered.

Comments (9) Post a comment

All Comments

airsteve172's picture

While this crash may raise questions in the minds of some, the fact that there were four persons aboard an aircraft that was designed for two already says a lot.

Bob Barbanes's picture

People would be surprised at the kind of crazy stuff that goes on outside of the confines of the U.S., especially in a remote corner of central America like the Bay Islands of Honduras. I'm surprised that this Air Cam *only* had four onboard!

booker655wer's picture

When people try to do things with airplanes they're not designed for...bad things are likely
to happen...period...!!!!!

cgritz's picture

When I was growing up I used to haul 7 in a 172. One each on the floor in the right front and two in in front of the rear bench seat. Spliting the hourly rate by 7 was a cheap way home from college.

SocalFlyer's picture

@cgritz: We'll assume the statute of limitations has run on that :-)

As noted, suprising things happen outside the apron of Big Mother FAA. Even in Alaska some raised eyebrows can be noted on pilots visiting from the Lower 48!

divertim's picture

It's a shame that media twists and accidents like this cast shadows of doubt on those of us who build/built and fly our aircraft as designed. We receive enough scrutiny as it is.

elmog's picture

In the USA it's illegal to use a homebuilt/experimental for commercial purposes. Outside the USA it seems that anything goes!

Scubaflyer's picture

This plane/ Business was not operating within the law in Honduras either, they just do not have the resources to police such things. According to their website whiich they promptly took down, the three main players in the business are all US citizens all with their pilots license from the US. Don't blame the media, blame the folks who ignored the rules just because they thought they wouldn't get caught

Jetdrivr's picture

This aircraft is experimental. It was designed as an IMAX platform to film the amazon.
There is no limitation on how many seats you can put in this aircraft. As long as the aircraft is within its weight limits, and the CG is within its limits, I don't see what the beef is.
The FAA oversight on operators in this country has NOT led to a safer environment for flyers. As a matter of fact, if you look at the statistics, you Are MUCH more likely to be injured or killed in a 135 aircraft as you are in a 91 operated craft.
The main goal of the FAA in the USA is to make sure that YOU are liable, and not them...for anything, and everything associated with operating an aircraft.
As for the gentleman that put 7 people in a 172.... If you'd been involved in an accident, or even an incident, it would have cost you DEARLY. If you were not the owner of the aircraft in question, you would be the owner after an accident, as you would have had to pay for it out of your pocket, along with years of litigation had anyone else been injured or killed...if you were the PIC...you would have faced an onslaught of intervention by the FAA....personally, I'd just as soon keep them at bay by just doing what's, legal, and most of all...what is SAFE.

Top Rated

Your Comment
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
All submitted comments are subject to the license terms set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use