I only have 800 on a Dak but I had an engine failure "about" every 3 months; one particularly memorable one with a large hole in the cowling where the piston went along with a nice toasty fire. Turns out the other pilot only had 2 throttle settings, balls to the wall or idle. Definitely not the airplane's fault.
However, I also think these old pelicans, which I have nothing but respect for, should not carry passengers. I can see the Hay to Yellowknife sched in the dead of winter when the density altitude is so helpful, but they should finally be retired to museums and such. Not only the barely-adequate performance on one but the fire thing, plywood floors and frequently vinyl and old-style plastic finishings plus all that 100 octane right besides the engine. I remember the prop-de-ice alcohol tank behind the pilot's seat. I remember doing a refit in ours and all the exit signs glowed because they were full of radium! I don't know if TC has caught up with the safety stuff, but I'd be surprised.
An attaboy to the crew - scary experience, nicely handled. Any one you can walk away from...
MUSKEG wrote:Hey if Harper was there then this was probably his fault too. Come on media, should be a tie in there somewhere
No No Muskeg, it was only Harper's fault if the engine failure was on ....wait for it..."the RIGHT WING"... Problems with the Left Wing would be the opposition's fault.
Glad all OK. No disrespect meant, purely academic question: So Doc/Cat/Dak people, you say she should have been able to make it back, what factors would cause it not to make it? Weight, density altitude, and temperature? Gear weren't stuck down. Did the prop feather ok?
Doc wrote:...Now, before you flame me (and you will) please consider the fact that I have over 6000 hours on the things, with more than 20 flights ending with one feathered. It's time has come.
Well, I've only got about 3200 hours on it, and I NEVER had to turn around right after takeoff with an engine feathered. Not that we didn't have the occasional engine problems, but I never had a fire. Their reliability was pretty good. I flew them for NWT Air and Terra Mines, and more hours than I could legally enter in my log book. Wheels and skis. Now it's a dog on skis, and will only descend on 1 engine, but on wheels, it should climb out at gross...even if slowly.
I don't buy the argument that they couldn't put the gear down; the only reason that would happen would be there wasn't time, because it's much slower with only 1 hydraulic pump.
The military used to fly them at 29,000 GTOW; we took off at 26,9 freight, 26,2 pax. And I have a career of logbook entries to prove it.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by swordfish on Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nobody knows anything cause we werent there you tit-heads. Do any of you have lives? I really fear for canadian aviation the way people expound their gibberish. People walked away. Well done i say.
Nobody knows anything cause we werent there you tit-heads. Do any of you have lives? I really fear for canadian aviation the way people expound their gibberish. People walked away. Well done i say.
This accident happened in a 705 operation carrying passengers.
Well done is not good enough because a 705 category airplane should be quite able to fly safely on one engine once airborne.
"we need to know" Who is the "we". The armchair expert avcanada posse?? Youre too funny. Start a blog or become an investigator or wait till they investigate. It only happened today. Maybe the plane was on fire or had any number of snags...im happy enough nobody was hurt.
So, Gongshowking, why do you read this site, Accidents and Incidents? There are other sources of accident reports, as I'm sure a man of your expertise and knowledge would know. If you have nothing to offer, maybe you should blow?
xsbank wrote:So, Gongshowking, why do you read this site, Accidents and Incidents? There are other sources of accident reports, as I'm sure a man of your expertise and knowledge would know. If you have nothing to offer, maybe you should blow?
+1
gongshowking wrote:"we need to know" Who is the "we". The armchair expert avcanada posse?? Youre too funny. Start a blog or become an investigator or wait till they investigate. It only happened today. Maybe the plane was on fire or had any number of snags...im happy enough nobody was hurt.
To answer your question about who "we" are...
"We" are pilots/engineers/managers that care enough to learn from mistakes of our colleagues and peers. We CARE when an aircraft that should be able to maintain on one fan, wasn't able to.
Job well done to the crew...but like others, I am anxious to hear why it couldn't make it back.
We all have lives that post on here...and part of our "lives" is aviation.
I wasn't there.
"Job well done by the crew..." remains to be seen.
A lightly loaded DAK (which this one reportedly was) is fairly easy to clean up, and return to the airport without incident. This one did not. Why? I don't know. I want to know. These guys came close to not making it (when you clip trees, fences, etc., you almost didn't make it) and we do need to know why. Was the fire such that getting on the ground trumped all else? The aircraft didn't burn to the ground after landing, so I sincerely doubt it.
I've flown several DC3's on one engine with various loads. I know what they'll do. This should have been a non event.
These are NOT the reliable "cool" airplane some of you romantics seem to think they are. They are antiquated museum relics. They do not belong in commercial ops carrying passengers.
Most are poorly maintained at best (not pointing fingers, general comment) requiring many hours of maintenance for each hour of flight. If a DC3 is spending less time "under the wrench" than it spends in the air, it's not being maintained properly.
Put them where they belong. Private collections. Museums. Just don't be selling people tickets to ride on them with scheduled air carriers.
Umm...if you have an engine fire, maybe the priority is to get the thing down and get the passengers off. Maybe it's best to wait for the investigation before any serious conclusions regarding the maintenance of the aircraft or the actions of the crew are involved.
I don't mind healthy speculation but these blatent "general' comments that condemn an operator before the evidence is made public is not only inflammatory, it's a bit pathetic.
CID wrote:Umm...if you have an engine fire, maybe the priority is to get the thing down and get the passengers off. Maybe it's best to wait for the investigation before any serious conclusions regarding the maintenance of the aircraft or the actions of the crew are involved.
I don't mind healthy speculation but these blatent "general' comments that condemn an operator before the evidence is made public is not only inflammatory, it's a bit pathetic.
Is this what this forum is becoming?
Getting the thing down, and getting the passengers off would USUALLY involve actually CLEARING the trees and fence? This would involve climbing after takeoff. If you flew, you'd know this.
Either way, I fail to see ANY condemnation of any operator.
The old girl doesn't even look too banged up.. I think I see a prop migrated off, hard-a-starboard though. Doubtlessly suffered the old "1830 up-rooted reduction case" syndrome there. The port engine prop tends to walk into the fuselage when that happens. Great insight from BJ on the whole thing, for all you haters out there..
Doc wrote:
Most are poorly maintained at best (not pointing fingers, general comment)
Please show us examples of how the DC-3's flying these days are poorly maintained. If you don't have direct evidence to show us, then at least tell us where you have discovered that most DC-3's are poorly maintained at best.
Eric Janson wrote:I have 3400 hours on the DC-3 - all with Buffalo.
The aircraft were well looked after when I worked there - only had 1 failure/shutdown in 7 years.
Just to satisfy my curiosity - when was the last DC-3 crash with passenger fatalities in Canada?
Sounds like you had a good experience. It's probably been quite a while since a fatality occurred in Canada on one. I know several pilots who were killed in them. Mostly freight operations, and many years ago. Actually, for the number of DC3's flying, even back then, vs. the number of fatalities, the DC3 did not have an enviable record. I can think of, off the cuff of 5 fatals. Out of a fleet of well under 50-60 aircraft, that's pretty crappy. Buffalo is a pretty unique beast, in that, who else flies them on sked service in Canada today? There were recently a couple flying for lodges. One in MB, but I don't think they do that anymore. They were using a 580 last time I checked.
Like you Eric, I really enjoyed flying them. Not so much the rest of the "song and dance" that wen with it.
C'Mon guys, it's time to retire the old girl.
Doc wrote:
Most are poorly maintained at best (not pointing fingers, general comment)
Please show us examples of how the DC-3's flying these days are poorly maintained. If you don't have direct evidence to show us, then at least tell us where you have discovered that most DC-3's are poorly maintained at best.
So, you want me to name names? On a public forum? Give your head a shake.
Buffalo has pretty good maintenance, from what I know. They're too "high profile" not to.
2+2=4 Please show your work.