Fedex Caravan down in Texas

Driving Rain · Post by **Driving Rain** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 4:30 pm

Ballistic recovery chutes are appearing as standard equipment in more and more certified aircraft. Maybe it's time to tackle the problems associated with fitting them to the larger airframes like the PC12 and the Van. It'd sure be way more usefull than radar altimeters.
I can here the ballyhoo now from some operators. Arguments against ....... anyone, Bueller.......

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 4:41 pm

RD1331:

Please explain what you mean by this.

" However I do believe that all SEIFR aircraft should have a WORKING Radar Altimeter. When the shit hits the fan, its a life saver. "

I don't quite understand how it's a life saver.

Cat

CID · Post by **CID** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 6:39 pm

So what's safer, flying, taking a train, driving, or walking, all reports point to(pre-911 atleast) air travel was/is the safest mode of transport...

I think we were talking about airplanes.

So, what shall we do? Stop taking our cars?

Again. I think we were talking about airplanes.

We all said that when a SE goes out you're going down.

So if ops want to run them and others want to fly and insure them, what's the problem? Is it hurting you in any way?

cyyz, I don't understand your line of questioning. All you seem to be doing is discounting what I have presented by deeming it irrelevant because it doesn't apply to cars or walking and your insistence that it's not hurting me.

If you don't want to participate in the discussion, then don't. What exactly are you afraid of. Is this discussion "hurting" you?

Ballistic recovery chutes are appearing as standard equipment in more and more certified aircraft. Maybe it's time to tackle the problems associated with fitting them to the larger airframes like the PC12 and the Van. It'd sure be way more usefull than radar altimeters.

Ballistic recovery chutes can get pretty expensive and on larger airframes they would take up a great deal of space. I read somewhere that the size of an effective chute goes up exponentially with the weight of the airplane. Based on kits available for the Cessna 172 I'm guessing that a system for a Cessna 208 would weigh about 500 pounds and take up a great deal of valuable cargo space.

Maybe it would be wiser to spend the extra money on a second engine?

rd1331 · Post by **rd1331** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 7:30 pm

CID take a reading lesson. I didn't say that SEIFR aircraft should be equiped with a radar altimeter, i said quote "a WORKING" radar altimeter. Not sure who talk you how to read.

And as for the question by Cat. All I'm saying is if the shit does hit the fan, a (quote for CID's sake) "WORKING" radar altimeter can help you out.

I'm not arguing about the fact that i wouldn't fly a Van over the mountains, I ain't stupid. But over the flat land where you ain't gonna hit a "Cliff" you have a pretty good chance of surviving in the Van, I have no experience on the PC12 so can't say much about them.

And CID if you're telling me a clapped out fully loaded Ho is going to maintain MOCA then you gotta be shitting me. or a 402 or 401, take your pick.

Ohya and for the safety level, I seem to remember a Ho that after 5 minutes with an engine on fire the wing fell off. Whatcha gonna do then? The Van will last a minimum of 15 minutes before anything happens with the engine on fire.

Safey is mostly in the pilots hands, if you are stupid and allow yourself to get into an aircraft and fly it with no alternatives or ways out you will find yourself in trouble. You wanna fly SEIFR over the mountains your looking for trouble, you wanna fly a clapped out piston twin over mountains your looking for trouble, Van into icing again looking for trouble.

Pilots just need to be smart. If the government and insurance companies had it there way every aircraft would have 4 engines. But they don't because its uneconomical and would ruin our industry. We need to take what we have and use it to the best of our abilities and the abilities and limitations of the aircraft we fly.

CID · Post by **CID** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 8:21 pm

CID take a reading lesson. I didn't say that SEIFR aircraft should be equiped with a radar altimeter, i said quote "a WORKING" radar altimeter.

Easy there sunshine. This may be a surprise to you, but if the Radio Altimeter isn't working you're not supposed to dispatch SEIFR. The MMEL allows dispatch with the radio altimeter inop but the SEIFR rule turns it into required equipment. Maintenance can defer it, but the airplane can only be operated VFR. Just like if anything on the list is busted. So your statement makes no sense unless you are ignoring the rules.

Not sure who talk you how to read.

Not sure who "talk" me how to read? Maybe it's not how I read things. It might be how you write things.

Clapped out fully loaded 'ho? The regulations I quoted didn't say anything about that. Nor did I. Where exactly did I write that? Or maybe I should ask where you read it.

The standard says (I'll state it again so you can READ it again):

No person shall operate a multi-engined aircraft with passengers on board in IFR flight or in night VFR flight if the weight of the aircraft is greater than the weight that will allow the aircraft to maintain, with any engine inoperative, the MOCA of the route to be flown.

Where does it say you can use a "clapped out fully loaded Ho"? for air taxi ops? Maybe the question is how many pilots out there are flying piston twin airplaines in air taxi ops with loads that violate the limiations?

Ohya and for the safety level, I seem to remember a Ho that after 5 minutes with an engine on fire the wing fell off. Whatcha gonna do then? The Van will last a minimum of 15 minutes before anything happens with the engine on fire.

Did you pull that stat out of your ass? Are you telling me that an engine fire will always burn the wing off a Navajo in 5 minutes but won't cause "anything" to happen in a Caravan for 15 minutes? Is that what you're telling me?

rd1331 · Post by **rd1331** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 9:47 pm

How about this CID, lets agree to disagree. You fly your twins. And i'll fly my, in my oppinion, safe caravan seifr. Alright.

Driving Rain · Post by **Driving Rain** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 10:09 pm

CID wrote:

Ballistic recovery chutes can get pretty expensive and on larger airframes they would take up a great deal of space. I read somewhere that the size of an effective chute goes up exponentially with the weight of the airplane. Based on kits available for the Cessna 172 I'm guessing that a system for a Cessna 208 would weigh about 500 pounds and take up a great deal of valuable cargo space.

Maybe it would be wiser to spend the extra money on a second engine?

They take up less room than a coffin and probably will weigh less. Funny how that works.

I agree with your last statement but with fuel prices climbing and the never ending quest to lower direct operating cost SEIFR will only increase in usage IMHO.

. . · Post by **. .** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 11:54 pm

If we're all talking about banning SEIFR why not ban twins that can't climb on one engine at gross? That's no less safe. I'd dare say that an *average* navajo operating in canada would be in the same category as the PC-12 or Caravan. They'd both be in a descent, the only difference would be the rate.

CID · Post by **CID** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 5:37 am

endless, I assume you are still talking about air taxi ops. In that case I don't agree. Air Taxi ops were created for airplanes that can "maintain, with any engine inoperative, the MOCA of the route to be flown."

SEIFR doesn't meet the intent in my opinion.

Commuter and Airline ops require a higher level of safety including the ability to continue a takeoff and climb with one engine out etc etc...

rd1331 · Post by **rd1331** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 7:52 am

CID, we're talking about SEIFR right?

Just wondering because how many Vans do you know of operating under 704 or 705? None that I know of.

And i agree with your statement about what a twin should do, but the fact of the matter is that these numbers are just pulled out of the POH. How many aircraft actually meet those numbers? Thats my hole point about twins. Navajo, 401, 402, 414 none of them would be able to hold a MOCA over the rocks, with one out, at gross on a summer day. Probably the 421 is the only piston twin that would. So basically we are arguing about the same thing. The fact is the book tells us they would, so do the pilots become test pilots check the airplane out themselves and find out altitudes. Or do they just follow what the book says, putting all there trust in numbers that the aircraft won't meet but its legal. Thats my point.

CID · Post by **CID** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 8:03 am

Just wondering because how many Vans do you know of operating under 704 or 705? None that I know of.

They can't because they don't meet the minimum requirements. No single engine airplanes do. I was just making the point that we are talking 703 here so there isn't the same performance requirements as 704 or 705.

Maybe I should have said:

Commuter and Airline ops require a higher level of safety including the ability to continue a takeoff and climb with one engine out etc etc...but NOT 703 AIRPLANES.

Thats my hole point about twins. Navajo, 401, 402, 414 none of them would be able to hold a MOCA over the rocks, with one out, at gross on a summer day.

Who said that an airplane had to hold MOCA with one out at gross on a summer day? The standard doesn't say that. Again, it says:

No person shall operate a multi-engined aircraft with passengers on board in IFR flight or in night VFR flight if the weight of the aircraft is greater than the weight that will allow the aircraft to maintain, with any engine inoperative, the MOCA of the route to be flown.

Show me where it says the airplane has to be capable of maintaining MOCA at max gross in hot weather. Or with one wing missing and flat tires for that matter. Maybe we all need a reading lesson huh?

golden hawk · Post by **golden hawk** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 9:07 am

Go to this link http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

Type in "Cessna" in the "make and model" box, and Caravan in the "word string" box.

CID · Post by **CID** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 9:13 am

Golden Hawk,

What am I looking for?

. . · Post by **. .** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 10:05 am

I'd agree that back in the 70's a PA-31 just off the line might be able to hold MOCA. I truly don't believe that the average clapped out PA-31 flying around the north if given an engine failure sometime shortly after takeoff would ever get anywhere near MOCA if it was at gross.

arctic navigator · Post by **arctic navigator** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 10:45 am

I would agree that an old clapped out ho wont maintain any reasonable MOCA, especially in the mountains... Flying in the mountains and given the option between a ho, pc12 or a 208 I would pick the 12, then the ho, then the 208... the reason for the order is the glide ratios and the handling of ice... but when it comes right down to it an airplane needs to be operated within its limits for the trip being done... therefore if you continue to fly a 208 in ice, or fly a ho somewhere you cant maintain the MOCA on 1, or fly the 12 where you cant make a suitable place to set down your nuts... and im talking about whether its private or commercial ops.

one question though... do the gliding distance to shore requirements apply to the turbine singles as they do to the piston machines???

dash2/3 · Post by **dash2/3** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 10:48 am

it's easy, if it can't maintain/climb with an engine out at gross, on any given day/meteoroligal condition/alignment of the stars or whatever, DON'T FLY THE FUCKING THING AT GROSS WEIGHT!!!

who the @#$! said ANY aircraft had to be flown at GROSS WEIGHT, ALL the time. no I'm not shouting, just emphasizing. Just because the owners, clients want the aircraft full ALL the time, does that mean you have to?

so you take less baggage, less pax so that you are at a weight that will enable the clapped out whatever you are flying to maintain or climb. BOO-FUCKING-HOO if it means less revenue. get a more capable aircraft to do the job required SAFELY and stop pushing pilots to do stupid things.

end of rant.

. . · Post by **. .** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 10:53 am

I'd really like to see how the above conversation plays out while you're trying to explain it to an owner. I do believe that the converstaion would end with "you're fired".

dash2/3 · Post by **dash2/3** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:09 am

endless, that's the problem with this industry. the old "if you won't do it, i've got a pile of resumes here that will...." we are our own worst enemies. The north is littered with wrecks of a/c flown by someone from that "pile of resumes". i have walked away from an awesome job/oppertunity to save my ass and to protect my family. unfortunately not everybody values themselves in the same mannner. Yes, thousands of hours get flown each and every year in these conditions, but when the shit hits the fan... oh poor johhny/suzie how unfortunate blah, blah blah.

Get a fucking backbone have a sense of self preservation. you owe it to yourself and your loved ones. if you don't give a shit about you and yours, have some consideration for your pax at least. I know that I am flogging a dead horse here but it doesn't hurt to try does it?

I work for a guy who is 99% of the time going to tell me that "tomorrow's another day", "Leave some of that gear behind, we'll do two trips whatever..." NOTHING in this world is worth killing yourself or others for.

If an owner wants to fire you for standing up for yourself and trying to ensure the safety of his operation than simply put... @#$! em.

dash2/3 · Post by **dash2/3** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:20 am

continuation of rant....

you, me, we all worked hard to get that piece of paper that enables us to fly for hire. we owe it to ourselves. we all want to come home for a beer at the end of the day, spend the evening with that signifigant other, our kids whatever your situation...

if you @#$! up because you were afraid the boss would be mad and fire your ass, remember, he is NOT going to back you up when you lose your license, medical, pay your court costs in a lawsuit aganst you by your pax or their families. he/she is NOT going to make sure your family is financially secure in your untimely departure. When TC/TSB comes a knocking, it's every man/woman for themselves. when the fingers start pointing be sure they will be pointing your way and once the insurance hounds are on your/your estates ass it's all over.

Just go to work do your job as safely and effeciently as you possibly can. endeavour to make your boss as much money as can SAFELY be done and hope he rewards you for it. if he doesn't, move on.

CID · Post by **CID** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:49 am

endless,

dash2/3 speaks the truth. In a colourful way no less!

If you take off in a Navajo that can't maintain MOCA during 703 ops, you are breaking the rules. You are supposed to reduce your load accordingly.

And what exactly is this talk about the difference in performance between a brand new 'ho in the seventies and an "old clapped out" one in the 21st century? The performance curves aren't plotted on a calendar. A new one performs like an old one unless of course the operator is crooked or negligent. Maybe it's the pilot or the operator that is "clapped out".

This isn't something new. Operators reduce their loads all the time to meet operational requirments.

It's much more prevalent in mountainous regions or places where it gets hot. Or both.

Sit and watch operations in Denver or DFW on hot days. You'll see lots of airplanes leaving with reduced loads. Especially the turboprops. (Like the Brasilia)

. . · Post by **. .** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 12:02 pm

CID wrote: And what exactly is this talk about the difference in performance between a brand new 'ho in the seventies and an "old clapped out" one in the 21st century? The performance curves aren't plotted on a calendar. A new one performs like an old one unless of course the operator is crooked or negligent. Maybe it's the pilot or the operator that is "clapped out".

What alternate reality are you living in that a 30yr old navajo prefroms as well today as it did when it came off the line?

Airtids · Post by **Airtids** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 12:14 pm

Endless, I think the point is that a properly maintained ho, or KA, or Islander, or whathaveyou will perform to as close to book value as someone could expect, regardless of it's age. We're not talking about the likelihood of a crapped out POS with on-condition engines being able to do that, but then again, good luck getting pax on something like that. I've got a 337 that is 40 years old, and shut down an engine last year, and guess what? She held 8300' all the way back home. Book value is 8500' on one engine. Pretty damn close, but guess what: My machine is properly maintained. The same applies to any aircraft. I attribute the differnce to nicks, dings, and faded paint, nothing to do with pilot ability

.

. . · Post by **. .** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 12:18 pm

regency gets passengers onto their PA-31's every day.

. . · Post by **. .** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 12:20 pm

where do you think the AVERAGE PA-31 or islander, or whatever else fits on the clapped out scale in Canada? I'd say the average one wouldn't come anywhere near to book vaules. Yes there are good companies out there that play by the rules. That said though, even the good ones will have degradation of preformace figures towards the end of the service life of their engines.

Airtids · Post by **Airtids** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 12:29 pm

endless wrote:regency gets passengers onto their PA-31's every day.

Ignorance is bliss. Decent paint makes an airplane WAY safer in the eyes of the public.

Let's say 1-10. 1 is in the scrap heap, 10 is new from the factory. Navair (or similar cargo ho) is 4-5; sound from an airworthiness standpoint; a few trim indicators, autopilots, etc. u/s, but functional machines. Put the average for passenger use somehere around the 7-7.5. My guess is the bulk of those average machines will perform 70-85% of book. Some better, some worse. Then again, these are numbers coming out of thin air, simply based on experience, but nothing more concrete than that. Truth is neither you nor I have the ability to answer this question, it is simply opinion. Take it or leave it.

Engine service life has increased dramatically over the past 2 decades. The biggest factor is the improvement of the oils we now use. It used to be that you were doing something right to make a piston engine go to TBO. Nowadays, you must be doing something wrong to not make it to TBO or at least 250 hours on-condition. Ask an AME, they'll agree. Naturally, there will be a degradation, but within TBO, it is minimal. Most operators try and stagger their engine overhauls. You'd think that with massive degradation over TBO, there would either be control issues, or a large split in the power levers between engines. I've never noticed either.