Illya Kuryakin wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 1:39 pm
Already gave you my take on the DC3 affair....of course, you’d have to be at least semi literate to read it.
Instead of taking shots at me, share some of your grade 6 wisdom. You really think a fuel leak caused two simultaneous PT6 failures? And you’re obviously not bright enough to see the folly in departing with a failed HSI? Obviously into IMC?
I'd be more concerned about a failed ADI actually, but I know what you mean, and of course can see the folly therein. I never claimed anything to the contrary. But in that particular case that was not what you were absolutely certain was the cause. So certain you cast a fair bit of aspersion on the crew and the company, even attributing a fatal accident to them that was not theirs.
It begs the question: why not give us such a bold prediction this time? You've told us about your past experiences and they sound very exciting no doubt. But why no bold statements on this one? For once, I'd be interested to hear you act as judge, jury and executioner like usual.
And don't be so sensitive Doc; you take shots at people all the time. It's all in good fun. Don't get your diaper in a twist.
Illya Kuryakin wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 1:39 pm
Already gave you my take on the DC3 affair....of course, you’d have to be at least semi literate to read it.
Instead of taking shots at me, share some of your grade 6 wisdom. You really think a fuel leak caused two simultaneous PT6 failures? And you’re obviously not bright enough to see the folly in departing with a failed HSI? Obviously into IMC?
I'd be more concerned about a failed ADI actually, but I know what you mean, and of course can see the folly therein. I never claimed anything to the contrary. But in that particular case that was not what you were absolutely certain was the cause. So certain you cast a fair bit of aspersion on the crew and the company, even attributing a fatal accident to them that was not theirs.
It begs the question: why not give us such a bold prediction this time? You've told us about your past experiences and they sound very exciting no doubt. But why no bold statements on this one? For once, I'd be interested to hear you act as judge, jury and executioner like usual.
And don't be so sensitive Doc; you take shots at people all the time. It's all in good fun. Don't get your diaper in a twist.
I’m concerned you know about my diaper! I’ve flown several King Airs. They’re all pretty much a known quantity. Departing into IMC with a failed ADI was really stupid, and it killed them.
King Airs don’t get fuel leaks that croak both engines at the same time. Can’t happen. Unless you’re living on another planet, the only way is to run them dry. Which these turkeys did. That operation should have it’s butt sued off. It my yet.
Some DC3’s fly better than others. Maybe this one was not a good one. I’m tossing these guys the benefit of the doubt.....
Who is this Doc guy? I hear tell he’s a legend.
Cheers
Illya
Illya Kuryakin wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 1:39 pm
Already gave you my take on the DC3 affair....of course, you’d have to be at least semi literate to read it.
Instead of taking shots at me, share some of your grade 6 wisdom. You really think a fuel leak caused two simultaneous PT6 failures? And you’re obviously not bright enough to see the folly in departing with a failed HSI? Obviously into IMC?
I'd be more concerned about a failed ADI actually, but I know what you mean, and of course can see the folly therein. I never claimed anything to the contrary. But in that particular case that was not what you were absolutely certain was the cause. So certain you cast a fair bit of aspersion on the crew and the company, even attributing a fatal accident to them that was not theirs.
It begs the question: why not give us such a bold prediction this time? You've told us about your past experiences and they sound very exciting no doubt. But why no bold statements on this one? For once, I'd be interested to hear you act as judge, jury and executioner like usual.
And don't be so sensitive Doc; you take shots at people all the time. It's all in good fun. Don't get your diaper in a twist.
I’m concerned you know about my diaper! I’ve flown several King Airs. They’re all pretty much a known quantity. Departing into IMC with a failed ADI was really stupid, and it killed them.
King Airs don’t get fuel leaks that croak both engines at the same time. Can’t happen. Unless you’re living on another planet, the only way is to run them dry. Which these turkeys did. That operation should have it’s butt sued off. It my yet.
Some DC3’s fly better than others. Maybe this one was not a good one. I’m tossing these guys the benefit of the doubt.....
Who is this Doc guy? I hear tell he’s a legend.
Cheers
Illya
Can you really blame the operator if the pilots are fully trained well above the minimum TC standard ie FFS in a G1000 equipped aircraft, legally qualified, CARs requirements are met, W&B is within limits, resources available at departure point and enroute and the checklists/SOP's properly identify and address the means to prevent the issue multiple times?
The hammer
Ya lost me. You quoted lots.....who has G1000? Certainly not the DC3? The 200? Perhaps. But a G1000 can't give you gas that's not in the tanks.
Illya
Illya Kuryakin wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 1:39 pm
Already gave you my take on the DC3 affair....of course, you’d have to be at least semi literate to read it.
Instead of taking shots at me, share some of your grade 6 wisdom. You really think a fuel leak caused two simultaneous PT6 failures? And you’re obviously not bright enough to see the folly in departing with a failed HSI? Obviously into IMC?
I'd be more concerned about a failed ADI actually, but I know what you mean, and of course can see the folly therein. I never claimed anything to the contrary. But in that particular case that was not what you were absolutely certain was the cause. So certain you cast a fair bit of aspersion on the crew and the company, even attributing a fatal accident to them that was not theirs.
It begs the question: why not give us such a bold prediction this time? You've told us about your past experiences and they sound very exciting no doubt. But why no bold statements on this one? For once, I'd be interested to hear you act as judge, jury and executioner like usual.
And don't be so sensitive Doc; you take shots at people all the time. It's all in good fun. Don't get your diaper in a twist.
Last time I looked, at takeoff, #1 engine failed, windmilling, gear down with full power on #2, climb rate was 50fpm at gross weight at ISA. #1 feathered and gear up was 250fpm with same weight and ISA. That was a while ago though. Charts in the aircraft manual. It’s not much, but gets you climbing.
JKM was the lightest of the fleet. No janitorial. Wood floors. Fun times in it. Had a unique smell to it.
Adiabatic
Adiabatic wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 8:59 pm
Last time I looked, at takeoff, #1 engine failed, windmilling, gear down with full power on #2, climb rate was 50fpm at gross weight at ISA. #1 feathered and gear up was 250fpm with same weight and ISA. That was a while ago though. Charts in the aircraft manual. It’s not much, but gets you climbing.
JKM was the lightest of the fleet. No janitorial. Wood floors. Fun times in it. Had a unique smell to it.
Adiabatic
All the charts and numbers refer to a new aircraft flown by test pilots. In 1940.
Illya
I can’t remember what it said in that revised manual from the 80s, but often wondered if it was based on the old 100/130 avgas as well. Was it copy and paste charts from the old manuals? I think I have some old random military DC-3 /C-47 manual somewhere.
Given that Buffalo has been unable twice now to keep a DC-3 airborne after an engine failure, should they be shut down or is it the DC-3 that needs to be retired?
Given that Buffalo has been unable twice now to keep a DC-3 airborne after an engine failure, should they be shut down or is it the DC-3 that needs to be retired?
Donald wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 1:34 pm
Given that Buffalo has been unable twice now to keep a DC-3 airborne after an engine failure, should they be shut down or is it the DC-3 that needs to be retired?
Interesting question Donald. The DC3 may well have run it's course. Buffalo is a bit stuck in the past as well. Perhaps some twenty first century operating style and a few less round engines. I'm not going to call the mix a time bomb......lets just say, I'm not surprised when stuff goes south.
Illya
I'd say the fleet needs some basic flight testing to ensure required performance can be reasonably expected. Do it at gross weight with a TC inspector on board so nothing is being fudged.
Just some basic tests to ensure 1st and 2nd segment climb performance is in the right ballpark. If it can't maintain MOCA from a failure in cruise, something is wrong.
Donald wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 1:34 pm
Given that Buffalo has been unable twice now to keep a DC-3 airborne after an engine failure, should they be shut down or is it the DC-3 that needs to be retired?
At very least limit it to cargo only if it's not that way already. The pilots hopefully know what risk they are taking. Innocent passengers would not. Probably the whole company should be cargo only since even their turbine machine went skidding down the runway. So not all there accidents are power plant related.
At very least limit it to cargo only if it's not that way already. The pilots hopefully know what risk they are taking. Innocent passengers would not. Probably the whole company should be cargo only since even their turbine machine went skidding down the runway. So not all there accidents are power plant related.
Is Buffalo Airways an unsafe operation Daniel, how many people have they killed during the time they have been operating?
On what grounds can you limit it to cargo only if it is still legal to carry passengers?
goingnowherefast wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 6:44 pm
I'd say the fleet needs some basic flight testing to ensure required performance can be reasonably expected. Do it at gross weight with a TC inspector on board so nothing is being fudged.
Just some basic tests to ensure 1st and 2nd segment climb performance is in the right ballpark. If it can't maintain MOCA from a failure in cruise, something is wrong.
What do you currently fly nowherefast? Shall we toss a TC dude on board to check your graph figures vs you? It'll never happen mate.
Illya
I said flight test the aircraft, not the pilots. They already do that with a little thing called a PPC.
Take a Buffalo DC3, gross weight, clean configuration, simulated feather at a reasonable altitude and see what happens.
I'm more curious if being beat up, abused and overloaded for the past 70 years has degraded the performance to where it's not safe anymore.
Stick a TC guy in my jumpseat any day. I've got nothing to hide. Perhaps we have a different relationship with the regulator. Ever heard of a monitored PPC ride?
goingnowherefast wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 8:27 pm
I said flight test the aircraft, not the pilots. They already do that with a little thing called a PPC.
Take a Buffalo DC3, gross weight, clean configuration, simulated feather at a reasonable altitude and see what happens.
I'm more curious if being beat up, abused and overloaded for the past 70 years has degraded the performance to where it's not safe anymore.
Stick a TC guy in my jumpseat any day. I've got nothing to hide. Perhaps we have a different relationship with the regulator. Ever heard of a monitored PPC ride?
Airplanes are night and day when feathered vs simulated feather. Done both. Can't be done. Too many variables. You'd need a SIM. Aren't any. Who'd fly? Technique is everything? Nope. It'll never happen. Not that it's a bad idea. It'd be interesting.
Another problem is the beast itself. Some just won't do it. I suspect most will....
Shock....LOL I've heard of monitored PPCs
Illya
Given that Buffalo has been unable twice now to keep a DC-3 airborne after an engine failure, should they be shut down or is it the DC-3 that needs to be retired?
What is your opinion?
If a newer 705 company had the same incidents and findings as Buffalo has in the past 10-15 years, do you think they'd still be allowed to operate?
C.W.E. wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 7:15 pmhow many people have they killed during the time they have been operating?
Is that the standard of a good company, that they haven't killed anybody (yet)?
As for the DC-3, I've never flown one. But they don't seem to be in high demand these days?
The idea of restricting them to cargo ops only is already sort of in place. The majority of their clients won't allow any employees on their flights, but it's ok to fly their cargo.
