182 down by Smithers

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

Post Reply
User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4053
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: 182 down by Smithers

Post by PilotDAR »

That is a very counter-intuitive result
Yes, though not so much if you're considering the induction air as "cooling" air - more air = more cool = more heat required to warm to deice.
---------- ADS -----------
 
trey kule
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4762
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Re: 182 down by Smithers

Post by trey kule »

I found this interesting, even if I never fly a carberated plane again.

I can still recall being taught that carb ice was more likely to occur at reduced power settings. Which does make the procedure counter intuitive if that is correct.
Darned if I can remember for sure. Something about more and hotter air at high power I think. But memory fails me.

I hope those that do experiment with this, confirm it for different types, particularly non STC carb installations.

As an aside I remember from decades ago that in the winter in the northern haze and very cold temps, we flew the C180 with carb heat on all the time. Nothing to do with carb ice...I think more about mixture at very cold temps being to lean. No one ever explained it, but if you did not do it the engines would run rough.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: 182 down by Smithers

Post by photofly »

PilotDAR wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 9:21 am
That is a very counter-intuitive result
Yes, though not so much if you're considering the induction air as "cooling" air - more air = more cool = more heat required to warm to deice.
I am going suggest without evidence that if the heat exchanger that warms the air is properly sized and designed, then you would not find that low air flow (and therefore low fuel burn, low power output, and high pressure drop and adiabatic cooling in the carb) would give the highest carburettor temperature rise.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: 182 down by Smithers

Post by pelmet »

PilotDAR wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 6:47 am
Are you saying that the manual is incorrect or the manufacturers technique is not as effective as reducing power?
Sadly, and with reluctance, I am. Yes, usually, I'm the person stating that the flight manual should be followed. If you were flying one of the two C 185's I STC approved with a carb, you would read my flight manual supplement which states a procedure as I describe. During my testing for that approval, that procedure was the difference between pass and fail for the carb air temp rise requirement - repeatedly. Anyone flying a plane with a carb air temperature indicator can very safely experiment with this (you don't have to wait to have carb ice). No harm can be done experimenting with carb heat application and power settings, as long as peak lean is respected. Watch the CAT to see what happens... I did.

While, in my posts, I try really hard to align what I write with the flight manual procedures for the aircraft, I know, as others do here too, that there are "tricks" which are not published, which once understood, result in a better yet outcome. My only guess would be that Cessna's lawyers would rather that a flight manual say to apply full power if in doubt, than to use a technique which could result in using power inadequate to maintain level flight, if not cautious. Caesar Gonzales was the Cessna guru on this kind of stuff, and I met with him a number of times at the ASTM gasoline meetings during my Mogas research. Caesar would tell me things about his experimentation, and his operation of his C 150M on Mogas which were very informative (and not always in line with Cessna's corporate position), and from his information I built on my knowledge. Discussion with him about induction airflow and carb heat was a part of this learning for me.
Thanks,

I do fly a C182 with a Carb Air Temp guage. I will try your method and see what the guage says. Stock engine.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4053
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: 182 down by Smithers

Post by PilotDAR »

I experimented again (factory C150M). At full power, 2700 RPM, carb heat cold, mixture rich = 53F, then carb heat hot = 71F, then peak lean = 77F. Reduce power to 2200 RPM, didn't touch anything else, carb air temp = 89F, repeated several times, same result. Then at 2200 RPM, carb heat hot, leaned more to peak, = 94F. Back to full power cold/rich, 53F again.

So, for that basic test, repeatedly, all other things being equal, I could get 12F more by reducing 500 RPM, and yet still having enough power for level flight. That 12F could make quite a difference if melting ice were marginal and critical.

I'll be interested to hear Pelmet's results, factoring in MP...
---------- ADS -----------
 
Capt. Underpants
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 333
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:04 am

Re: 182 down by Smithers

Post by Capt. Underpants »

trey kule wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 12:04 pm What bothers me most about these kind of accidents is the provincial governments lack of regard for safety.

Saskatchewan and Ontario require this to be done in multiengine aircraft.
Alberta and BCdont. Why not? Because there are no government workers on board so they can reduce the margin of safety to save money. And there are companies out there who will blast off into the mountains single engine either not recognizing the potential outcome of an engine failure, or ignoring it.
As tragic as this is, no one in the government will be liable for anything.
If there were govt employees as crew members you can be assured they would require multi engine...
BC and Alberta forestry employees fly in single engined C208 air attack aircraft all the time.
---------- ADS -----------
 
trey kule
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4762
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Re: 182 down by Smithers

Post by trey kule »

Ah yes...the internet.

I should have been more precise. Single engine piston,

The Caravan provides a very much larger margin of reliabilty.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: 182 down by Smithers

Post by pelmet »

BeaverDreamer wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 8:56 am In early May I'd hazard survival in this scenario is damn near impossible. A cold river in freshet is a hell of a lot different than a lake or an ocean.
How about the water being freezing cold in late June in southern Canada during a heat wave......


"Recounting it hours later, he said watching the water flooding into the car was “like right out of the movies” but that helping without hesitation was what any first responder would do.

“I just happened to be there first,” he said.

Bell was at home in Dunrobin at about 12:20 a.m. when the call came in from police, who still had the woman on a 911 call, trying to keep her calm and help her free herself.

He started the approximately four-minute drive to the Thomas A. Dolan Parkway and Barlow Crescent, where there’s a small beach on the shoreline.

“The water originally when I got the call was around her chest area and I got halfway there and it was above her shoulders which tells me how fast the water was coming in,” said Bell, who was thinking that if he was first on scene, “I’m going to go for a swim.”

On arrival, he kicked off his boots, grabbed a lifejacket and a window punch tool and dived into the water, relieved to hear from the woman’s calls for help that she was still OK.

The car’s roof was just above the water and he could see its headlights shimmering below.

“I told her just to relax — we’re going to get you out,” Bell said.

Unable to open the door, he broke the rear passenger window to grasp the handle from inside but couldn’t reach it. So he told her to face away so he could break the driver’s door window and reached the handle but couldn’t open the door.

At this point, the woman had to sit up in her seat and tilt her head back to keep her mouth out of water that was rising fast towards the roof.

“She had to get out and had to get out quick,” Bell said.

He cleared away the shards of broken glass and pulled her out.

Other than being in some mild shock and being freezing cold, she was in pretty good shape,” Bell said.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/o ... d=msedgdhp
---------- ADS -----------
 
iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8132
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: 182 down by Smithers

Post by iflyforpie »

trey kule wrote: Sat Jun 20, 2020 10:33 am Ah yes...the internet.

I should have been more precise. Single engine piston,

The Caravan provides a very much larger margin of reliabilty.
In the BC South East Fire Centre, where I flew for most of a decade among peaks that were 2000-5000 feet higher than we usually flew for survey and patrol work... they tried to make multi engine aircraft a requirement.

Until it was pointed out that every fatal fixed wing accident that happened doing forestry work for SEFC was a multi engine aircraft.

I didn’t feel any safer in a 337 than I did in a 206. Stall speed is higher, turn radius larger, the fuel management is more complex than nearly every turbine aircraft in existence, twice as likely to have an engine failure, and the remaining engine was quite unlikely to get you back to an airport.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1632
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: 182 down by Smithers

Post by cncpc »

iflyforpie wrote: Sun Jun 21, 2020 8:00 pm
trey kule wrote: Sat Jun 20, 2020 10:33 am Ah yes...the internet.

I should have been more precise. Single engine piston,

The Caravan provides a very much larger margin of reliabilty.
In the BC South East Fire Centre, where I flew for most of a decade among peaks that were 2000-5000 feet higher than we usually flew for survey and patrol work... they tried to make multi engine aircraft a requirement.

Until it was pointed out that every fatal fixed wing accident that happened doing forestry work for SEFC was a multi engine aircraft.

I didn’t feel any safer in a 337 than I did in a 206. Stall speed is higher, turn radius larger, the fuel management is more complex than nearly every turbine aircraft in existence, twice as likely to have an engine failure, and the remaining engine was quite unlikely to get you back to an airport.
Same gig in 2009. Out of Nelson, with a Hicks and Lawrence leased 337. Patrols and bug mapping. A lot of flying that year.

I was going to answer Trey specifically on SEFC policy, but I sensed they have lapsed that. I know Thierry gets the call for a 172 out of Nelson for patrols. When I was there it still was a twin requirement, but those guys at Creston got single engine work. So, not a hard requirement, but a preference, as you say.

It is true that you have twice as much chance of an engine failure on a twin than a single. On the other hand, you have a chance of making it to an appropriate landing area in the twin, if you can handle the single engine work. Obviously, that doesn't hold true on an engine failure just after rotation. I've never had one calve on the 337, but I don't see a failure at altitude as a problem. I did one trip with an observer who had worked for another company with 337s, and she told me they she was on a flight where both engines failed from fuel exhaustion, and she was very nervous. They failed back by Balfour/Harrop at patrol altitude and the guy deadsticked it onto Nelson, 19 miles away. She said it was very close.

Still, if it was some other cause, and one was still running, obviously it would have went quite a bit farther than that. Especially staying above waterways. Certainly Creston, Castlegar, and Trail would be makeable.

I don't recall any issues with steep turns mapping a fire, but I told them I'm not doing steep turns in a canyon 200 feet off the ground. I said, I'll report what I can safely fly over, and you can send a helicopter to look at it. And they did.

That is unique territory. You have next to dick all for options in a single. Other than lakes, which I guess are fine if you can make it to some shallow shoreline.

The one thing that was "special" about the 337 was that minimum speed to raise the gear thingie. If you had an engine failure and were below that speed you couldn't raise the gear. I think the speed was 103. The problem was that broken legged dance the gear does going through the up transit caused more drag than just leaving it down. I do think an engine failure on take off in a 337, depending on load, is a perilous situation. I think once you have the gear up, and are above 500 feet, you've got a good shot at getting back down.

When I took off from Nelson towards the Prestige, as soon as I lifted off, I would move the nose to pointing to the lake, so I had that option. Then stay low and immediately pull the gear up. I think we'd have done fine. Fuel fuel, but only two on board.

This Babine crash is likely going to result in another look at procedures within the Forest Service. I do credit them with having more than minimal aviation safety smarts. I think they frequently bring in expert advise.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: 182 down by Smithers

Post by pelmet »

pelmet wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:15 pm
cncpc wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:11 pm
pelmet wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:32 pm

I'm afraid I need to make clear that the idea that it is very unlikely that anyone will be injured overall in a fixed gear aircraft landing in water is false, in my opinion. One need only google something like Aircraft Flipover Water Fatal to see multiple fatal examples. And there is a significant likelihood of flipping over with all the issues that go along with it from injury, shock, fear, disorientation, escape difficulties, current, hypothermia, and likely other issues. Be very careful about considering a ditching in a fixed gear aircraft. It may turn out better than tree landing, but do not believe that injuries are very unlikely overall during the event from touchdown to leaving the water. I know that is not exactly what was quoted but it could be grossly misinterpreted.
Which is exactly what you did. We get it. You're a guy who has decided he's a man for the trees, with all the risks that entails. That's fine. Until somebody else's life depends on your choices. Then it's not an abstract discussion. It's not fine if some young pilot who has read your view and acts on it and everyone perishes if there was a shallow water shoreline also available at the edge of those trees or within gliding distance.

I'm not speaking from a theoretical position I actually have ditched an airplane with four people on board into San Francisco Bay. After engine failure due to carb icing. I had to abandon a forced approach at 50 feet into a landfill site when a truck pulled in front of me on the small road where I was going to crash land. The only choice was the Bay alongside the landfill. From the time I switched from land crash to ditching to the end of the ditching was less than 15 seconds. I landed with a 23 knot tailwind. The tail went in first, I went through the windshield, swam to the surface, saw the airplane, a 172, on its nose with the passengers climbing out of. It went on its back as I swam back to it and the three passengers, two carrying their luggage, just stood on the underside of the wing. We'd landed within feet of a small boat, and they took everybody to shore, although a Coast Guard Sikorsky did come out from SFO. Other than myself, nobody got wet above the ankles. Nobody was hurt. I had a tetanus shot. The doors were jammed open with clothing as part of the forced landing drill. My own seatbelt got missed in that.

Must take a lot of experience to do that? No. Next to none. I'd just finished my PPL at Langley the week before. At the time of the accident, I had 33 hours PIC. It seems that level of experience is not correlated with any particular outcomes in ditchings. I would think it has to be in tree landings.

I have a whole lot more now. In this case, I'd have made the same decision this pilot made, although it seems it might have been influenced by the company suggestion to take trees over water in spring freshet conditions. I would think that when you've got 46000 hours, you're well capable of making good on the spot decisions. It's all a matter of a few feet sometimes. Had he been 20 feet left and passed by that tree, the best outcomes of the tree landing approach may have occurred.

I don't think it contributes to the understanding of this complex choice to weight one side with worst case scenarios. Exhaustively. It would put a person off chocolate cake if a sentence could be constructed linking it with "...injury, shock, fear, disorientation, escape difficulties, current, hypothermia, and likely other issues." Other than current, every one of those problems can also be associated with a tree landing.
I would suspect that for every successful ditching, I'm sure there has been a successful landing in the trees, and for every fatal fixed gear ditching, there is quite possibly near as many fatal landings in trees.

I was just pointing out that there are multiple examples of people dying while ditching to ensure that anybody, perhaps new to aviation, would understand that.

Like current, and most importantly drowning doesn't come with a tree landing, and drowning can easily result from injury, shock, fear, disorientation, and escape difficulties. Something to weigh when it comes to a difficult choice.

Once again, this doesn't mean that landing in the trees is the better choice.

Thanks for your story. I am certainly glad that you were not knocked unconscious when you went through the windshield or else the outcome may have been very different.

Speaking of shallow water ditchings...here is an interesting video of possible outcomes....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gz9ogCtkeI
Just recently finished reading through this discussion in the comment section of the article linked below which has some more opinions on water versus trees for a crash landing. Once again, a variety of opinions......

https://pilotworkshop.com/tips/emergenc ... mpaign=tip
---------- ADS -----------
 
trey kule
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4762
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Re: 182 down by Smithers

Post by trey kule »

I didn’t feel any safer in a 337 than I did in a 206. Stall speed is higher, turn radius larger, the fuel management is more complex than nearly every turbine aircraft in existence, twice as likely to have an engine failure, and the remaining engine was quite unlikely to get you back to an airport.
First of all, the “complex “ fuel system is only in the older models of the 337. The later models have not only more fuel, but connected tanks, relieving the pilot of having to switch fuel tanks in flight, remember about overflow, timing, and restart procedures. But I would hardly deem them really that complex.

I am not sure why you felt flying on one engine back to an airport would be such a challenge.

As far as the gear raising issue, it was caused not mainly by the gear itself, but the clam shell doors, that could cause a loss of several hundred feet if an engine went south in the initial climb, again though, most 337’s you see now have the STC and the clam doors removed. Without them , the height limitation is removed, though many companies, and pilots don’t seem to have gotten the memo. In any event, the gear causes little drag, and the gear retraction speed is very high, so maybe people like to put some air between them and the ground before retraction.if you flew two planes, one with the clam shell doors on, and one with them off, you would recognize the noticeable difference.

Lastly, when it comes to turn radius, that is purely a function of speed, and a 337 at 80-85 kts does not require that much more radius. On a more practical level, the only pilots I have experienced having to do more than the occasional steep turn, do it for a thrill, not for any operational reason. I have literally a dozen old notes of passenger complaints with a few pilots. One of the benefits of the tracking systems today is it allows an unbiased record of how the plane was flown.

In any event, as it seems my information about BC is incorrect, I will withdraw from the thread.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by trey kule on Mon Nov 02, 2020 3:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: 182 down by Smithers

Post by pelmet »

trey kule wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:55 pm
I didn’t feel any safer in a 337 than I did in a 206. Stall speed is higher, turn radius larger, the fuel management is more complex than nearly every turbine aircraft in existence, twice as likely to have an engine failure, and the remaining engine was quite unlikely to get you back to an airport.
First of all, the “complex “ fuel system is only in the older models of the 337. The later models have not only more fuel, but connected tanks, relieving the pilot of having to switch fuel tanks in flight, remember about overflow, timing, and restart procedures. But I would hardly deem them really that complex.

I am not sure why you felt flying on one engine back to an airport would be such a challenge.

As far as the gear raising issue, it was caused not mainly by the gear itself, but the clam shell doors, that could cause a loss of several hundred feet if an engine went south in the initial climb, again though, most 337’s you see now have the STC and the clam doors removed. Without them , the height limitation is removed, though many companies, and pilots don’t seem to have gotten the memo. In any event, the gear causes little drag, and the gear retraction speed is very high, so maybe people like to put some air between them and the ground before retraction.if you flew two planes, one with the clam shell doors on, and one with them off, you would recognize the noticeable difference.

Lastly, when it comes to turn radius, that is purely a function of speed, and a 337 at 80-85 kts does not require that much more radius. On a more practical level, the only pilots I have experienced having to do more than the occasional steep turn, do it for a thrill, not for any operational reason. I have literally a dozen old notes of passenger complaints with a few pilots. One of the benefits of the tracking systems today is it allows an unbiased record of how the plane was flown.

In any event, as it seems my information about BC is correct, I will withdraw from the thread.
I can tell you have some 337 experience. Quite correct about the old fuel system versus the new. It can't get any more simple than on the new 337's. Also correct about the gear door mod by Uvalde in Texas(named after the town). It removes the large clamshell doors but not the small side doors. I found the cowl flaps had a significant amount of drag and something to seriously consider closing even on the good engine in a critical engine failure situation.

Lastly, I did have a temporary power loss in cruise once due to a some sort of faulty fuel flow issue(solved with the boost pump). It is about the same as reducing the power by half in a single engine aircraft and feels like a non-event. That being said, I suppose one could be lulled into temporarily thinking that it is a non-event when in fact, it starts to dawn on the pilot that altitude capability has been significantly reduced in a situation where it is critical such as high terrain areas.
---------- ADS -----------
 
trey kule
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4762
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Re: 182 down by Smithers

Post by trey kule »

We are getting a bit off topic here, but yes to the cowlflaps. I don’t have the numbers for a 337, but IIRC, in the Navajo you could get about 50 extra feet of climb per minute with them closed. Both sides with an engine failure.
The problem with the 337 cowl flaps is they don’t have limit switches, and rely on the professionalism of the pilot. Dozens of burned out cowl flap motors from pilots who forgot. The same issue with the standby flaps in Caravans.
For the life of me I don’t understand the OEM thinking on these things.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8132
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: 182 down by Smithers

Post by iflyforpie »

trey kule wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:55 pm
I didn’t feel any safer in a 337 than I did in a 206. Stall speed is higher, turn radius larger, the fuel management is more complex than nearly every turbine aircraft in existence, twice as likely to have an engine failure, and the remaining engine was quite unlikely to get you back to an airport.
First of all, the “complex “ fuel system is only in the older models of the 337. The later models have not only more fuel, but connected tanks, relieving the pilot of having to switch fuel tanks in flight, remember about overflow, timing, and restart procedures. But I would hardly deem them really that complex.
It was an older 337. Tell me in detail the process for restarting an engine with a blown main tank and tell me any other non-Cessna aircraft that is so convoluted.
I am not sure why you felt flying on one engine back to an airport would be such a challenge.
Out in the middle of nowhere with a rear engine that’s already running hot with another one helping out.
Lastly, when it comes to turn radius, that is purely a function of speed, and a 337 at 80-85 kts does not require that much more radius. On a more practical level, the only pilots I have experienced having to do more than the occasional steep turn, do it for a thrill, not for any operational reason. I have literally a dozen old notes of passenger complaints with a few pilots. One of the benefits of the tracking systems today is it allows an unbiased record of how the plane was flown.
No.. it’s not a lot more, but it still is more in an operation that requires you to go into tight spaces. That’s exactly how one of the 337s I mentioned previously met its demise. Maybe a 185 or 206 wouldn’t have made it? Maybe they would have?

https://www.tsb-bst.gc.ca/eng/rapports- ... 7P0211.pdf

I think you also don’t understand how a tracking system actually works. It is not like FDR data updated in real time. It’s a GPS position, altitude, and speed fix updated ever 6 minutes in most cases.

And any company I ever flew with doesn’t give a crap about what they reported unless it was something like a completely wrong route or stopping not at an airport.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8132
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: 182 down by Smithers

Post by iflyforpie »

trey kule wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 3:58 pm We are getting a bit off topic here, but yes to the cowlflaps. I don’t have the numbers for a 337, but IIRC, in the Navajo you could get about 50 extra feet of climb per minute with them closed. Both sides with an engine failure.
The problem with the 337 cowl flaps is they don’t have limit switches, and rely on the professionalism of the pilot. Dozens of burned out cowl flap motors from pilots who forgot. The same issue with the standby flaps in Caravans.
For the life of me I don’t understand the OEM thinking on these things.
You don’t understand the system. Neither did the pilot who taught me how to fly it and told me to leave the knob half a knob from full closed. Amazingly, neither did all of his previous AMEs who went through the cowl flap system and weren’t able to get it to work properly. And yes if you went to limits you’d pop the circuit breaker or shear the roll pin or burn out the motor.

So then I opened the Service Manual.. and found out that the cowl flaps are pretty much identical to a Cessna flap system. There are limit switches and about four pages of literature and diagrams for how to rig it. And like rigging anything; there are no shortcuts. You have to take it all apart and start at the very beginning. It took me hours but in the end, I had cowl flaps that could be abused by the most ham-fisted pilots and work perfectly normally.

So I stand by my opinion of the 337. The extra engine just means you are twice as likely to have an engine failure. You are OVER twice as likely to have an engine failure due to the possibilities of fuel mismanagement in an environment where you are distracted by constantly dodging obstacles, looking for fires/wildlife/etc, on trips that can last 7 hours. And due to the high altitudes, remote areas, and that the rear engine always runs hot.. the possibility of making an airport with that engine still running is not guaranteed. Then you have to deal with the other liabilities like higher turn radius, higher stall speed etc which makes forced approach in extreme terrain less survivable.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
trey kule
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4762
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Re: 182 down by Smithers

Post by trey kule »

Well, Ifly.

I had written a response to you post. Then reread your latest posts.
I think there is little point in discussing this anymore with you.
Your mind is made up. No need to confuse things with the facts, or try to brush off your attacks to defend your position.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
User avatar
Castorero
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 276
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: 182 down by Smithers

Post by Castorero »

I have flown over the Babine River more times than I can remember in the past 35 years, kayaked it once and floated it twice.
It is not an inviting landing option at the best of times unless you have a death wish.
I can see why the pilot in the 182 could have chosen the trees, if indeed he had a choice.

I am perplexed about the apparent inverse relationship between Power and Carb heat that PilotDar describes.

If one has spent a lot of time in a non carburated machine, going back to a carburator is a real PIA for a lot of hours, until it becomes second nature.

My experience in the -2 is that Carb Heat increases and decreases directly with power changes and that you have to visit the CAT lever every time you change power settings.
It helps immensely having a CAT Gauge for keeping the Temp in the green as the lever adjustment is only about 3/16" between too hot and not useful hot.

I am sure there is a reasonable physical explanation for the situation PilotDar describes.
---------- ADS -----------
 
cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1632
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: 182 down by Smithers

Post by cncpc »

iflyforpie wrote: Tue Nov 03, 2020 9:16 am
trey kule wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 3:58 pm We are getting a bit off topic here, but yes to the cowlflaps. I don’t have the numbers for a 337, but IIRC, in the Navajo you could get about 50 extra feet of climb per minute with them closed. Both sides with an engine failure.
The problem with the 337 cowl flaps is they don’t have limit switches, and rely on the professionalism of the pilot. Dozens of burned out cowl flap motors from pilots who forgot. The same issue with the standby flaps in Caravans.
For the life of me I don’t understand the OEM thinking on these things.
You don’t understand the system. Neither did the pilot who taught me how to fly it and told me to leave the knob half a knob from full closed. Amazingly, neither did all of his previous AMEs who went through the cowl flap system and weren’t able to get it to work properly. And yes if you went to limits you’d pop the circuit breaker or shear the roll pin or burn out the motor.

So then I opened the Service Manual.. and found out that the cowl flaps are pretty much identical to a Cessna flap system. There are limit switches and about four pages of literature and diagrams for how to rig it. And like rigging anything; there are no shortcuts. You have to take it all apart and start at the very beginning. It took me hours but in the end, I had cowl flaps that could be abused by the most ham-fisted pilots and work perfectly normally.

So I stand by my opinion of the 337. The extra engine just means you are twice as likely to have an engine failure. You are OVER twice as likely to have an engine failure due to the possibilities of fuel mismanagement in an environment where you are distracted by constantly dodging obstacles, looking for fires/wildlife/etc, on trips that can last 7 hours. And due to the high altitudes, remote areas, and that the rear engine always runs hot.. the possibility of making an airport with that engine still running is not guaranteed. Then you have to deal with the other liabilities like higher turn radius, higher stall speed etc which makes forced approach in extreme terrain less survivable.
We've both flown the same type in the Monashee and the Selkirks on fire patrols and bug mapping. Generally, yes, the extra engine means you are twice as likely to have an engine failure. I don't think anybody is surprised by the math of that. What that means in a side by side is that while you may have quite a bit of time to pick where you are going to land, including at an airport, you do have the requirement to always maintain control and that is more difficult than in a single, or a 337. In a side by side, the running engine can, and has, killed many people. That doesn't happen in a 337. There is no VMC roll.

I forget which one it is, but there is still sort of a "critical" engine on a 337. Not related to p factor on the running, but its a bit worse to lose one than the other purely in terms of performance. Okay, I researched it, and on pre 1973, you got 50 fpm less with the rear failed than with front stopped. After that, not much difference.

I know some talk about cooling difficulties on the back engine, but I don't recall it running at a significantly higher temperature. Conversely, it does seem that the rear needs a top sooner than the front.

If you are in the BC mountains, and you're in a situation in a 337 where anything whatever depends on the difference in turn radius, you're probably gone already for something you may have done minutes before when you allowed an airplane to descend into a situation where turn radius was all that was going to save you. I suspect IFly is talking about the specialized work of fire spotting for the BC Forest Service and what they called "mapping" the fire, where it was presumed that a pilot's licence included some special ability in assessing fuels and risk and I forget what else. I do remember that it was a task that in many situations could not be done safely. So I didn't do that. I told them there was a fire, it was spreading, crowning, whatever, and to send tankers if that was obvious. They were going to send a chopper anyway. My job is not to be down doing steep turns in gulches and canyons trying to identify the species of shrubbery that was burning, or whether the squirrels were nervous. You can do everything they require, which is providing information, orbiting at 500 feet above the fire and never worrying about turn radius.

I'm not sure it was entirely the gear doors that complicated the engine out procedure on takeoff. I remember that part of the drag came from the gear transiting profile in which the wheel was broadside to the slipstream for a short time.

We are off topic about the Smithers crash. While I remain baffled about how some see a ditching on a shoreline as such a Doomsday scenario that they would prefer to fly into trees, in this particular case, I don't fault the pilot at all. He really didn't have any other choice. That he was aware of. When the engine lost power, he was within easy sight and gliding distance of the Silver Hilton strip. He didn't go there, it apparently wasn't in the GPS database, and that choice, although there, wasn't available to him. It does seem that the course he took up was mistakenly believed to be for the same strip he could see outside his window.

This crash was caused by issues with the carb heat capabilities of the unusual STC that was in the thing, and we can learn from that and some of the lads here are very knowledgeable on that and informing us. Not sure what can be learned from flying away from safety.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: 182 down by Smithers

Post by pelmet »

iflyforpie wrote: Tue Nov 03, 2020 9:16 am So then I opened the Service Manual.. and found out that the cowl flaps are pretty much identical to a Cessna flap system. There are limit switches and about four pages of literature and diagrams for how to rig it. And like rigging anything; there are no shortcuts. You have to take it all apart and start at the very beginning. It took me hours but in the end, I had cowl flaps that could be abused by the most ham-fisted pilots and work perfectly normally.
It seems to me that there must be limit switches on the cowl flaps of the 337. There is a neutral position for each toggle switch but sometimes it gets forgotten and I haven't seen the motor burn out. Could it be that the motor burns out if you forget to move the switch back to neutral and the limit switch has failed.
cncpc wrote: Tue Nov 03, 2020 6:28 pm So I stand by my opinion of the 337. The extra engine just means you are twice as likely to have an engine failure.
This may be true but the chances of a crash landing after an engine failure are 100% in a single while much less in a C337.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”