TSBC releases final report - C208 crash in CYWG

2R · Post by 2R » Mon Dec 11, 2006 11:27 am

Matt are you saying that it is safe to climb towards an area of icing at 85???
If you are, you are WRONG .I would suggest the you read the POH supplements and the report just published before your next flight.I am assuming that you are a pilot.Although you should not be flying a Caravan if you think it safe to fly IMC at 85.

Birdogging is usually done VFR sometimes mvfr in smoke and this accident happened IMC .
And this accident did not happen VMC/VFR to

When you take a Caravan IMC at less than 120 you are going against what the POH supplement suggests .As a mere mortal i respect the people who wrote the POH and supplements as they all went to the big schools .

The Caravan does not stall as dramatically as the Beaver DH2 .There is washout on the wing .It also does not fall out of the sky as quick as a stalled Beaver.

Again Read the books before you open your Yap.

matt foley · Post by **matt foley** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:33 pm

I seem to have missed the part where you said 120kts "in icing"...oh wait you didnt. Read before you open your Yap or you can pm me tough guy and we can set up a meeting. And I dont think you want to get into a pissing contest over what books I have or havnt been reading. PS make sure you attach your name to the pm message.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:38 pm

Hey matt....the whole frikken thread has been about ICE! Or maybe you didn't notice that small fact??
The fastest way OFF this board, is through threats......

Jerricho · Post by **Jerricho** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:45 pm

matt foley wrote:Read before you open your Yap or you can pm me tough guy and we can set up a meeting. And I dont think you want to get into a pissing contest over what books I have or havnt been reading. PS make sure you attach your name to the pm message.

Uh boy. I was getting a great deal out of this thread right up till now

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:51 pm

Without looking it up cpl....if the aircraft is flying Okay, I wouldn't change a configuration. If you have just raised flap, and the handling goes down the tube, reselect the flap. Likewise, if you've just selected flap, and it goes for a dump, bring the flap back up. Flap can change the angle of attack. Usually a little nose down.....sometimes, this can prevent clear ice from "running" or forming under the wing.....this is very bad.

2R · Post by 2R » Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:56 pm

I do not know of any aircraft that is certified for Severe icing as defined by the FARs

cumufsumyunguy · Post by **cumufsumyunguy** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 1:49 am

So other aircraft were being de-iced that morning eh...were these aircraft coming out of a hangar? Were they sitting all night? Had they flown in that morning and were on a turn? Did they have newly painted surfaces or were they polished (or not so) aluminum...surely Doc you've noticed that certain consistencies of snow will adhere more readily to an old aluminum surface than a newly painted one, what about fuel tank location and the temperature of the fuel...bladder? Wet wing? Did you research all of these things on each of the aircraft in question? I'm going to go ahead and assume not, which makes your statements unfounded. Raising doubts and questions can be healthy, it may place a thought in someone's head that could save them one day. However, totally discrediting the TSB report at the expense of a good pilot with your own "factual" version is a little much no?

matt foley · Post by **matt foley** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:51 am

Gee, who would have thought. Erasing my posts now are we Doc. Funny how everyone else is making the same arguments about flap seeting vs speed as my "mystery" post. Sad...really.

2R · Post by 2R » Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:54 am

Those people who wrote the report done all their speculation before putting pen to paper.
This is not about who is Right or Wrong .It is an opportunity to help prevent a similar accident from happening again.
If you are looking for a personal fight you are on the wrong forum.

My gut feeling when i first read the report was that there was something missing as you should not die in three minutes of ice ,
Being a few pounds over weight should not be fatal either .

I still feel that there is something missing ,but some things are alarming on the report and cpl_atc has read one of the things that alarmed me the most.

Airspeed is life.Get the right one for a happy one

overshoot · Post by **overshoot** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:01 am

Guys,

For God's sake keep the speed up in ice in the Caravan and don't change the wing if you don't have to. I wouldn't dare lower my speed below 105kts in a moderate ice situation even if it meant a controlled decent. Start picking up ice underwing past the boot and your day will get miserable. Just be safe out there guys. Remember your training.

the_professor · Post by **the_professor** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:44 pm

Where do those behind the $25M lawsuit expect it to go, based on the report?

The sad reality, but inescapable reality nonetheless, is that she took off overweight, and then flew at below the recommended airspeeds. Ergo, she did not fly within the limitations described in the AFM/POH.

Some are arguing in addition that the wings may have been contaminated before take-off, which is a possibility that cannot be totally dismissed. [Remember that the Safety Board determines probable causes, not absolutely indisputable causes.]

I would expect Cessna's vigourous defence to include the fact that no matter the model, an aircraft may fly erratically (or not all) if operated outside the bounds of the recommendations of the manufacturer.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 8:12 pm

cpl....just a thought, but could she have been below the proper airspeed, because, she was already too iced up to accelerate?
Matt.....I have no idea what you're talking about? What post? Flap "seeting" vs speed????
BTW, I've got a fair bit of 'van time.

Alex YCV · Post by **Alex YCV** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:20 am

Just a thought, but there is a point where the groundspeed suddenly catched up to the airspeed. 10:38:30 - would this be making a turn that removed the headwind, potentially? Might the lack of acceleration (of airpseed) at that point been the first indication that things were not right?

lost · Post by **lost** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:35 am

If you look at the climb charts beside the speed charts the (calibrated) airspeed is decaying the entire climb. I would think alot of that origional climb was a trade of speed for climb. Another interesting thing is to look at the max speed (calibrated) that was achieved. I would be interested to know from the experienced caravan drivers how normal it is to hit less than 80kts in an icing climb. I would say it looks like something was not right from the get go. Considiering the first 1000 or so feet of climb was below the cloud deck wouldnt the speed of been higher before cloud penatration?

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:33 pm

Less than 80 in a climb through ice, would be highly unusual. The decaying airspeed during climb would certainly indicate contamination prior to take off. In this case, it would be prudent to lower the nose to sacrifice climb rate for airspeed. Once cloud is entered, the pilot would have the transition to IMC to contend with further compounding an already uncomfortable situation. Throw in a windshield frosting over due to in flight ice, and an immediate decrease in angle of attack would be required to recover..........did TSB have this climb profile? It's a "finger print" for an accident.

lost · Post by **lost** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:45 pm

The charts are in the appendix of the report.

lost · Post by **lost** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:58 pm

At 10:37.5 speed is 100kts cal. This is the max speed attained in the climb.
At 10:38.5 speed is 82kts cal.
at 10:39 speed is 76kts cal. At roughly this point the climb levels off then the a/c starts to decend at gains speed to a max of 101kts cal.