Narrative:

A friend and myself took off from albert whitted airport in st petersburg, fl. WX conditions were excellent and VFR. My friend, who also owns a searey amphibious plane, wanted to compare the flight characteristics between our 2 planes and offer me his expertise. We had a normal takeoff to the southwest, and ascended to approximately 1100 ft. At that altitude we did some slow bank and turns, associated with typical sightseeing flts. Upon reaching the open water of the gulf we very gradually descended to an intended altitude of 50 ft. Our purpose was to practice approachs. I believe we had about 25 degree flaps and airspeed of about 70 mph. We continued in this confign for a very short time when we experienced what seemed to be a downdraft, unexpectedly forcing us to contact the water. I believe, upon the first contact the left landing gear dropped, hitting the water. At that point, as I remember, the plane may have touched down twice but no more than 3 times before settling on the water. After appraising the situation, we found ourselves to be uninjured and none the worse for wear as a result of this unintentional water landing. We were, perhaps, a mi offshore at this point. With no boats in sight for assistance, we water taxied the plane into about 4 ft of water off ft desoto beach. Upon reaching the shallow waters of the beach, a sheriff's patrol boat came along side to offer us assistance. We thanked him and said someone was already on the way from whitted. He said an FAA representative was also on the way. We met with the FAA representative, and upon completing the necessary FAA paperwork, we water taxied the plane to just northwest of the skyway bridge, approximately an 8 mi taxi. The next am we moved the plane, by truck, for the repairs. Supplemental information from acn 610598: a park ranger approached and said they had recurring problems with people in aircraft flying low over the beaches. The ranger's statement concerned us that he might have mistaken our plane for a low flying ultralight. I talked to the FAA representative the next day and he said the park ranger indicated we were buzzing people on the beach. I said the ranger was absolutely wrong and I insisted that our statements were very accurate. I even offered to take a polygraph examination. The owner said almost the exact same thing to the FAA representative. The owner and I never had any intention of landing the plane in the water. We did not have the time (we were only going up for a few mins to test the radios) and neither of us were current with water lndgs. The owner did not even have a sea plane rating. Additionally, I was not current in the searey and would not have felt comfortable making a water landing. This, and because the owner was supposedly current in the searey, is the primary reason we agreed prior to the flight that the owner would be the PIC. Additionally, I knew the owner had recently performed several lndgs with his instructor and he reiterated he was current in the searey prior to our flight. Had I known differently, I would not have accompanied him on the flight that day. We might have made a few judgement errors. The FAA representative said because the other pilot did not have a sea plane rating, that I would have to be the PIC no matter what the prior agreement.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: 2 PLTS, FLYING A SEAREY HOME BUILT AMPHIBIOUS ACFT, DAMAGED THE ACFT DURING AN UNANTICIPATED WATER LNDG AFTER DEPARTING SPG.

Narrative: A FRIEND AND MYSELF TOOK OFF FROM ALBERT WHITTED ARPT IN ST PETERSBURG, FL. WX CONDITIONS WERE EXCELLENT AND VFR. MY FRIEND, WHO ALSO OWNS A SEAREY AMPHIBIOUS PLANE, WANTED TO COMPARE THE FLT CHARACTERISTICS BTWN OUR 2 PLANES AND OFFER ME HIS EXPERTISE. WE HAD A NORMAL TKOF TO THE SW, AND ASCENDED TO APPROX 1100 FT. AT THAT ALT WE DID SOME SLOW BANK AND TURNS, ASSOCIATED WITH TYPICAL SIGHTSEEING FLTS. UPON REACHING THE OPEN WATER OF THE GULF WE VERY GRADUALLY DSNDED TO AN INTENDED ALT OF 50 FT. OUR PURPOSE WAS TO PRACTICE APCHS. I BELIEVE WE HAD ABOUT 25 DEG FLAPS AND AIRSPD OF ABOUT 70 MPH. WE CONTINUED IN THIS CONFIGN FOR A VERY SHORT TIME WHEN WE EXPERIENCED WHAT SEEMED TO BE A DOWNDRAFT, UNEXPECTEDLY FORCING US TO CONTACT THE WATER. I BELIEVE, UPON THE FIRST CONTACT THE L LNDG GEAR DROPPED, HITTING THE WATER. AT THAT POINT, AS I REMEMBER, THE PLANE MAY HAVE TOUCHED DOWN TWICE BUT NO MORE THAN 3 TIMES BEFORE SETTLING ON THE WATER. AFTER APPRAISING THE SIT, WE FOUND OURSELVES TO BE UNINJURED AND NONE THE WORSE FOR WEAR AS A RESULT OF THIS UNINTENTIONAL WATER LNDG. WE WERE, PERHAPS, A MI OFFSHORE AT THIS POINT. WITH NO BOATS IN SIGHT FOR ASSISTANCE, WE WATER TAXIED THE PLANE INTO ABOUT 4 FT OF WATER OFF FT DESOTO BEACH. UPON REACHING THE SHALLOW WATERS OF THE BEACH, A SHERIFF'S PATROL BOAT CAME ALONG SIDE TO OFFER US ASSISTANCE. WE THANKED HIM AND SAID SOMEONE WAS ALREADY ON THE WAY FROM WHITTED. HE SAID AN FAA REPRESENTATIVE WAS ALSO ON THE WAY. WE MET WITH THE FAA REPRESENTATIVE, AND UPON COMPLETING THE NECESSARY FAA PAPERWORK, WE WATER TAXIED THE PLANE TO JUST NW OF THE SKYWAY BRIDGE, APPROX AN 8 MI TAXI. THE NEXT AM WE MOVED THE PLANE, BY TRUCK, FOR THE REPAIRS. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 610598: A PARK RANGER APCHED AND SAID THEY HAD RECURRING PROBS WITH PEOPLE IN ACFT FLYING LOW OVER THE BEACHES. THE RANGER'S STATEMENT CONCERNED US THAT HE MIGHT HAVE MISTAKEN OUR PLANE FOR A LOW FLYING ULTRALIGHT. I TALKED TO THE FAA REPRESENTATIVE THE NEXT DAY AND HE SAID THE PARK RANGER INDICATED WE WERE BUZZING PEOPLE ON THE BEACH. I SAID THE RANGER WAS ABSOLUTELY WRONG AND I INSISTED THAT OUR STATEMENTS WERE VERY ACCURATE. I EVEN OFFERED TO TAKE A POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION. THE OWNER SAID ALMOST THE EXACT SAME THING TO THE FAA REPRESENTATIVE. THE OWNER AND I NEVER HAD ANY INTENTION OF LNDG THE PLANE IN THE WATER. WE DID NOT HAVE THE TIME (WE WERE ONLY GOING UP FOR A FEW MINS TO TEST THE RADIOS) AND NEITHER OF US WERE CURRENT WITH WATER LNDGS. THE OWNER DID NOT EVEN HAVE A SEA PLANE RATING. ADDITIONALLY, I WAS NOT CURRENT IN THE SEAREY AND WOULD NOT HAVE FELT COMFORTABLE MAKING A WATER LNDG. THIS, AND BECAUSE THE OWNER WAS SUPPOSEDLY CURRENT IN THE SEAREY, IS THE PRIMARY REASON WE AGREED PRIOR TO THE FLT THAT THE OWNER WOULD BE THE PIC. ADDITIONALLY, I KNEW THE OWNER HAD RECENTLY PERFORMED SEVERAL LNDGS WITH HIS INSTRUCTOR AND HE REITERATED HE WAS CURRENT IN THE SEAREY PRIOR TO OUR FLT. HAD I KNOWN DIFFERENTLY, I WOULD NOT HAVE ACCOMPANIED HIM ON THE FLT THAT DAY. WE MIGHT HAVE MADE A FEW JUDGEMENT ERRORS. THE FAA REPRESENTATIVE SAID BECAUSE THE OTHER PLT DID NOT HAVE A SEA PLANE RATING, THAT I WOULD HAVE TO BE THE PIC NO MATTER WHAT THE PRIOR AGREEMENT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.