182 down by Smithers

[pelmet]

Of course, there have been quite a number of aircraft on amphibs that left the wheels down and flipped over on landing with fatal results(likely at low speed and tail low at touchdown). Meanwhile, some reading material...….

Amphib left the wheels down for a water landing is not a ditching, quite a significant difference.

Definitely differences but definitely some similarities. A good chance of flipping upside down suddenly in the water is quite a significant similarity. Near stall speed and likely tail low.

Unless you have some specific info that these flip overs are somehow different.....but based on the quality of posts I have seen from you....I doubt it.

[pelmet]

I agree with the idea that a ditching is favourable to trees in many situations and the impact is often not terribly violent. However, even in the middle of June at much lower water levels I wouldn't like my chances if I were to jump into the Babine River in a controlled manner today. That water is cold. It is fast moving. Even with a life jacket survival doesn't seem anywhere near guaranteed. Nevermind the part where you have to ditch and egress along with three other people. 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.

Exactly...…the water is damn cold and if even if uninjured, strength is sapped away quickly. And then there is the consideration for those deciding to ditch of.....can you or your passengers even swim. Might want to ask that to them before choosing water over land. Survived without a scratch but.....drowned after the plane sank.

[cncpc]

I agree with the idea that a ditching is favourable to trees in many situations and the impact is often not terribly violent.

No, it's not.

Neither is going through a windshield. In my case, I did get launched out of my seat, but mostly just fell headfirst through the windshield when the plane went on its nose. Aircraft windshields are strong in the being hit from the outside direction, not so much people going through from inside. I'm sure its no problem to sit on a front seat and just push the windshield out with one or both feet.

Imagine going 50 mph in a car and having brakes that would bring you to a stop in 25 feet. That's about it.

[pelmet]

In the past many 182s have gone down with carb ice. And there is a good explanation.
The 182 has a constant speed prop. Pilots, particularly those who are not familiar with CS props expect carb ice to cause a drop in RPM...They are not looking at the MP. By the time it becomes noticeable in the RPM it is pretty much to late. It happens more frequently in 182s because they are a step up plane.

The second issue, not exclusive to 182s is the use of partial carb heat without a carb temp guage.

The C182 POH states that after using carb heat to remove carb ice, partial carb heat can be used with the minimum amount of heat required to prevent it from forming. It states that 'trial and error' can be used. There is no definition of what error would be. That seems to go against conventional wisdom of not using partial heat without a carb temp guage.

[cncpc]

My understanding of this, which comes from info around the time of the accident, is that the adapted 0-470 carb heat system, even if working and used perfectly, will not provide sufficient heat to remove ice in conditions of heavy carb icing. I think the logic is that there is more moisture in each intake stroke of a 550 than in a 470 because the intake volume is greater, while the heat produced is not.

[photofly]

The C182 POH states that after using carb heat to remove carb ice, partial carb heat can be used with the minimum amount of heat required to prevent it from forming. It states that 'trial and error' can be used. There is no definition of what error would be. That seems to go against conventional wisdom of not using partial heat without a carb temp guage.

Here's the entry:

Screen Shot 2020-06-17 at 10.23.59 PM.png (139.53 KiB) Viewed 3036 times

[PilotDAR]

even if working and used perfectly, will not provide sufficient heat to remove ice in conditions of heavy carb icing. I think the logic is that there is more moisture in each intake stroke of a 550 than in a 470 because the intake volume is greater, while the heat produced is not.

This has been my experience in all carburetted Continentals. So, which this less than ideal characteristic, I optimize the wording of the Flight Manual which Photofly quotes; I "readjust the throttle" earlier in the process. As if I really need carb heat to have the most effect, as soon as I have applied it, I'll lean (to cause maximum EGT). I'll evaluate the effect (which may include the engine stumbling as ice melts and is ingested), and as I can, I'll close the throttle as much as I can accept the lesser power, and lean more. The closed throttle reduces induction airflow, and thus reduces the amount of cold, moist air which must be warmed by the carb heat.

On one un-nerving night flight, that was not enough. I was really high, so as I descended under limited power, I gently used the primer to add a little power to the engine, and it was enough to have deicing effect, and I got power back.

[pelmet]

even if working and used perfectly, will not provide sufficient heat to remove ice in conditions of heavy carb icing. I think the logic is that there is more moisture in each intake stroke of a 550 than in a 470 because the intake volume is greater, while the heat produced is not.

This has been my experience in all carburetted Continentals. So, which this less than ideal characteristic, I optimize the wording of the Flight Manual which Photofly quotes; I "readjust the throttle" earlier in the process. As if I really need carb heat to have the most effect, as soon as I have applied it, I'll lean (to cause maximum EGT). I'll evaluate the effect (which may include the engine stumbling as ice melts and is ingested), and as I can, I'll close the throttle as much as I can accept the lesser power, and lean more. The closed throttle reduces induction airflow, and thus reduces the amount of cold, moist air which must be warmed by the carb heat.

On one un-nerving night flight, that was not enough. I was really high, so as I descended under limited power, I gently used the primer to add a little power to the engine, and it was enough to have deicing effect, and I got power back.

The manual says apply full throttle, not a reduction in power. Are you saying that the manual is incorrect or the manufacturers technique is not as effective as reducing power?

[PilotDAR]

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.

[photofly]

That is a very counter-intuitive result, and definitely calls for some experimentation

[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.

[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.

[photofly]

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.

[pelmet]

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.

[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...

[Capt. Underpants]

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.

[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.

[pelmet]

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

[iflyforpie]

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.

[cncpc]

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.

[pelmet]

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

[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.

[pelmet]

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.

[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.

[iflyforpie]

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.