valleyboy wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 5:31 pm
All this pissing and moaning about dc3's and pilots. It seems to me that this is closer to a dbl engine failure. In this case with one failed and the other not producing rated power creates a situation that if your name is Sully you are a hero yet you all seem to shit on this from 30 thousand feet. - damn
You've never even had a ride in one, have you?
Illya
C.W.E. wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 7:15 pm
Is Buffalo Airways an unsafe operation .....?
I'm not anti-Buffalo or anti-antique aircraft (I think their entire fleet is super cool) but a quick internet search turns up 11 accidents since 2001. So they've been plowing them in at a rate of about 1 every 19 months. Regardless of how many people they've managed to not kill, those don't seem like great safety stats to me, but then again I think crashing airplanes is unsafe.
C.W.E. wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 7:15 pm
Is Buffalo Airways an unsafe operation .....?
I'm not anti-Buffalo or anti-antique aircraft (I think their entire fleet is super cool) but a quick internet search turns up 11 accidents since 2001. So they've been plowing them in at a rate of about 1 every 19 months. Regardless of how many people they've managed to not kill, those don't seem like great safety stats to me, but then again I think crashing airplanes is unsafe.
What's their crash rate per flight hour?
They also operate in some pretty challenging conditions.
What's their safety record compared to similar operators. First Air, Air North. Who else operates 705 up there?
And don't give me the "piston engines are special". Pretty sure even Navajos are being balled up at a lower rate due to engine failures. Navajos have lower engine-out performance requirements too.
goingnowherefast wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 2:40 pm
What's their safety record compared to similar operators. First Air, Air North. Who else operates 705 up there?
And don't give me the "piston engines are special". Pretty sure even Navajos are being balled up at a lower rate due to engine failures. Navajos have lower engine-out performance requirements too.
What’s killing Navajos are the brain dead carps forgetting to put the wheels down. The airplanes themselves are very good.
Illya
Well maybe we are getting somewhere - in this case it's not about pilots or mistakes but reliability of piston engines in this day of the turbine /jet. Cabin class piston twins are death traps pure and simple. They should be outlawed.
I think a dc3 could be operated safely but rules need to change. Start by reducing TBO times and make oil analysis mandatory along with 50 hour motostats. Problem is not many operators will do this on their own. Oh ya - toughen up on over hauls and make sure parts used are in tolerance when installed.
You can't operate a Dc3 to 705 so restrict it to freight and operate under 704 I'm sure that's been done.
I have flown both and don't think that's entirely true. I think you will find far more smoking holes in the ground from cabin class twins, but a lot of those are experienced base due to loss of control by dropping below vmca. I have witnessed first hand to many of those.
I have flown both and don't think that's entirely true. I think you will find far more smoking holes in the ground from cabin class twins, but a lot of those are experienced base due to loss of control by dropping below vmca. I have witnessed first hand to many of those.
I've never had to bring a 'ho home on one. Modern engines are more reliable. Plain and simple. Most are rolled up in balls by the guy in the left seat.....again and again.
As for freight only for the DC3? Great idea, but also drop the gross from 26,900 by 1000 pounds. Gross on these things is like speed limits. 100 posted, everybody goes 110-115. Except in a DAK, this will kill you.
Illya
jpilot77 wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 7:37 pm
Nolinor is another Northern 705 that goes into basically the same places as Buffalo with a better record. But they are using cv580s and 737-200s.
Apples and oranges sport. Buffalo has a better record with their own turbo props than their Racers as well.
Illya
C.W.E. wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 7:15 pm
Is Buffalo Airways an unsafe operation .....?
I'm not anti-Buffalo or anti-antique aircraft (I think their entire fleet is super cool) but a quick internet search turns up 11 accidents since 2001. So they've been plowing them in at a rate of about 1 every 19 months. Regardless of how many people they've managed to not kill, those don't seem like great safety stats to me, but then again I think crashing airplanes is unsafe.
What's their crash rate per flight hour?
They also operate in some pretty challenging conditions.
There are many operators north of 60 that operate in exactly the same or even more challenging conditions, likely all of which have better safety records. It's not as though going from YHY-YZF and back, or up the Mackenzie valley is terribly difficult aviating, relative to what else goes on in the North.
"C-GJKM, a Douglas DC3C-S1C3G aircraft operated by Buffalo Airways, was conducting cargo
flight BFL169 from Hay River/Merlyn Carter (CYHY), NT to Yellowknife (CYZF), NT with 2 flight
crew on board. During the climb to cruise altitude after the departure from CYHY, the number 1
engine (Pratt & Whitney-USA, R-1830-92) lost complete power. The flight crew elected to return to
CYHY, however were unable to maintain altitude. As more power was added to engine number 2
to maintain airspeed, it started to run rough. The flight crew declared a PAN PAN, subsequently
followed by a MAYDAY; a forced landing was executed approximately 3.5 nm south east of CYHY.
The aircraft was substantially damaged, but there was no post-impact fire or injury to either flight
crew."