DC-3 "Crash" Yellowknife

[lost in the north]

Doc you talk about people making stupid decisions yet you say you were on approach to Little Grand when you had to cage 1 engine, and then elected to fly 110 miles one engine at 400 ft. Why not land at the nearest airport????

[Siddley Hawker]

I had a friend in Ozmania who began his flying career on the DC-3 with Air Niugini, based in Port Moresby PNG. They flew their DC-3 at a MTOW of 28,000 lbs. He said they didn't fly too well on one.

[Doc]

Doc you talk about people making stupid decisions yet you say you were on approach to Little Grand when you had to cage 1 engine, and then elected to fly 110 miles one engine at 400 ft. Why not land at the nearest airport????

No reason I should have to defend a successful decision, BUT, Little Grand was snow packed. IE. it most probably have resulted in an off runway excursion. AND. If you know the area at all, the airports in the neighbourhood would have been in the same condition. Most likely not a pretty result. SO. I flew back to PAVEMENT and some braking action.
Why?
What would you have done? I have reasons to do things as I do when diverting from the normal. So far, I'm batting 1000. You?

[CFR]

Successful outcome does not always equal good decision, nor do good decisions always result in successful outcomes.

[lost in the north]

After 20000 hrs I am batting 100% as well. Having flown radials I find they are not to reliable, more so when using more power on the one to limp home. And yes I do know the area.

[Doc]

I've found that most (I've had more than a few) engine failures happen on power increases or reductions. The operating engine was left at a steady power setting all the way home. We make decisions based on several factors. Most of all, on available data at the time. Would you have landed, pretty much guaranteeing bent metal? Either way, it would be YOUR decision to make, as it was mine. Happy to hear you're batting 1000. Hope it continues. For both of us.

[swordfish]

I had a friend in Ozmania who began his flying career on the DC-3 with Air Niugini, based in Port Moresby PNG. They flew their DC-3 at a MTOW of 28,000 lbs. He said they didn't fly too well on one.

The military flew them at 29,000. We used to fly them at 26.2 passenger, or 26.9 freight...we never flew over gross according to the journey logs. But they didn't fly very well at these weights on one either

[CID]

Doc, I’m not going to criticize your decision to fly to Red Lake after the engine failure incident you described because I wasn’t there. I don’t know ALL of the details, but I do have some questions which of course you are under no obligation to answer.

I would assume that if you were going to land in Little Grand on two engines, why not on one after the other failed? Were you concerned about the logistics of an engine change in Little Grand? Would you rather be stranded in Red Lake? Yes, the hard pack would add an element of risk but let’s consider the choice to continue on one in what is pretty remote terrain. And that would have been a “secondary” consideration. You were one engine failure (another secondary consideration) away from becoming another DC-3 statistic.

Generally, most AFMs and SOPs for that matter prescribe landing at the as soon as practical following an engine failure on a twin. Of course that means finding a “suitable” runway and that (possibly) is your “out”.

With respect to old airframes not meeting published performance figures, I have to wholeheartedly disagree with you. First of all, the numbers that manufacturers publish in the AFM are conservative. If your engines don’t meet the minimum rated power, you need to stay on the ground until they do. Think of (for example) the loads “possible” for a Twin Otter compared to the loads “allowed”.

If old airframes flew slower then Basler’s product would be a failure. As long as there are no major dings and the symmetry check out, it shouldn’t be a factor.

The DC-3 is a odd machine in that it’s the only non-transport category aircraft (as far as I know) that is allowed to fly under 705 rules. It was grandfathered because TC figured they would steadily go out of service. Since the cabin isn’t pressurized, the only thing that will kill it is the engines, and parts seem to still be available.

Airplanes like the 737-200 have a much lower probability of reaching the geriatric operating age that the DC-3 enjoys primarily due to pressure vessel structural limitations. Or how about Bristol Freighters? Not a lot of Bristol Hercules engine parts floating around outside of a museum.

In the subject accident, the performance of the airplane may have been degraded by various factors. High take-off weight, failure to feather, high ambient temperature, pressure altitude, or maybe the remaining engine wasn’t making the minimum acceptable power.

Could be maintenance, could be bad dispatch control, could be bad pilot technique or failure to follow the published procedures. They could all be factors. But that’s where the speculation stops. I’m not going to point fingers until more facts are known.

[fish4life]

It may be a dumb question but does a DC-3 have fire bottles ? And does any one know of any 705 machine that does NOT have a fire suppression system for the engines ?

[xsbank]

Yes they have single firebottles for each engine but with a real fire and gasoline, that bottle goes once and is gone and what if you still have an ignition source? Fire scares the crap out of DC3 drivers (well, this one is!). My engine fire went out but it was quite dramatic and gets me a rapt audience at the pub.

[Doc]

Successful outcome does not always equal good decision, nor do good decisions always result in successful outcomes.

I disagree with the first half, but you are correct with the second.
Also, safe does not always equal legal, and legal does not always equal safe.

[GyvAir]

Decision: Land downwind to enable a straight in landing in light of being very short of fuel and wanting to be on the ground now.
Outcome: Less than pretty landing stopping 50' short of cutting grass in the ditch at the end of the runway. Enough fuel left in tanks to taxi to pumps. Nobody the wiser but you and the fueler who raised eyebrows on fitting 210 litres into a 172. Successful, as nothing bent and nobody hurt.
Quality of decisions though?

[Rookie50]

Decision: Land downwind to enable a straight in landing in light of being very short of fuel and wanting to be on the ground now.
Outcome: Less than pretty landing stopping 50' short of cutting grass in the ditch at the end of the runway. Enough fuel left in tanks to taxi to pumps. Nobody the wiser but you and the fueler who raised eyebrows on fitting 210 litres into a 172. Successful, as nothing bent and nobody hurt.
Quality of decisions though?

Hmmm. Would depend on, when I had to make the decision,

The airplane -- like how well it glides, length of runway, what's beyond runway, and the wind strength.

Many variables. Suppose in something like a 172, if it quit halfway downwind at 1000 agl, close in, one could gilde to an into wind landing. Lower agl, light wind, I'd go for the downwind landing too, especially in anything heavier.

[GyvAir]

True.. lots of variables and we weren't there in this imaginary scenario to know how the situation came to be.

How about?... Got back to airport from town just after the fueler left for the night. $100 call out fee. Gotta make it make it home for hot date. Figures could likely make it on the 1/4 tanks remaining. Takes off downwind to save time and fuel. Only has a couple oak leaf stains to wipe off the wheel pants upon successfully getting back to home ramp without the engine quitting.
Lots of decisions made, leading to a successful outcome.

[Siddley Hawker]

Yes they have single firebottles for each engine...

And what frikkin' sadistic contortionist put the handles in that little hatch on the floor?

Swordfish check your PM's. There was a 26,900 pax version of the DC-3 also, you had to have the so-called heavy axles, the -94 engines and the rudder servo tab, as I recall, for the upgrade to increased gross weight.


I did a couple of trips with this one, it had R2000 engines.

[swordfish]

I didn't know that. But we did have one with -94s in it, but still 26.2 takeoff. What I found ironic was that with passengers, we had to lower the takeoff weight. i.e it didn't matter if the pilots were killed in a crash...only the pax!

[Doc]

EDITED

[lost in the north]

I see no one can question Doc, you seem to offer your opinion on everything...wanted or not. Someone questions you and you get your panties tied in a knot. EDITED

[Cat Driver]

EDITED

[lost in the north]

Sorry Cat, a little older than twelve. I think you and Doc have a lot to offer the young, low time pilots. Its how you do it that irks many. We all know how you feel about T.C. I think most people don't want to hear about it anymore. I think if the posts were constructive, rather than you and Doc acting like god looking down on everyone. There are many pilots as good or better on this forum than you two who come across in a much more helpful manner.

[godsrcrazy]

Well no surprise here another AvCanada post that has been hijacked into name calling and belittling. .

Back to what this post was about incase you all forgot. A Buffalo DC-3 Crashed in Yellowknife after an engine fire on the #2 (Right) engine as reported by passengers. I wont say shut down as appears the #1 engine was running hard when it spit off the prop and the #2 was obviously running when it bent the blades the way it did. These blades do not bend like this from windmilling. Some call it a hard landing but the fact is it never made the asphalt. I can't wait to see the TSB report why this aircraft was not able to fly on 1 engine at 700 ASL on a day that was not overly hot. I am being told this aircraft had 21 pax and 3 crew along with bags and freight. I guess only time will tell. Still can't help but wondering why as this is not the first time a DC-3 has lost one on takeoff.

[Tuk U]

Here here lost in north... very well said, I can't speak for everyone else but I think you sure did hit the nail on the head with your comments on the pontiffs. The constant holier than all attitude is truly tiresome.

[CpnCrunch]

Surely there is a difference between:

[1] two pilots in a king air both forgetting to do multiple pre-landing checks, and landing gear up

and:

[2] a pilot making a conscious decision to fly to another airport on one engine due to concerns about landing on a snow-covered runway with one engine

[Doc]

Here here lost in north... very well said, I can't speak for everyone else but I think you sure did hit the nail on the head with your comments on the pontiffs. The constant holier than all attitude is truly tiresome.

You're correct. We do tend to "pontificate" over pilots demonstrating stupidity and lack of airmanship by doing "little things", at least in the minds of yourself and Lost In The North. Little things like leaving the wheels up. Little things like pushing weather. Little things like killing their passengers because they just aren't doing their jobs. EDITED

[Siddley Hawker]

Doc, our standard departure briefing in case of engine failure for the F-27 and G1 off 01 out of YWK was..... "After t/o immediate right turn to 040, climb to 3500' over the lake, right turn direct Flora Lake for the full ILS back on 01." There were times when we briefed..... "After t/o immediate right turn to 040, climb over the lake until we're out of the turbulence, right turn request direct YZV." ZV was 195 sm South.