external load stc
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
-
- Rank 4
- Posts: 240
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 4:56 pm
external load stc
Looking to purchase an stc for external loads on a C-185?
Re: external load stc
Sorry I dont have the link, but you can search the TC website for STC;s and maybe contact the owner of one of them.
I wonder what it would cost to hire an engineering company (DECA?) to make one?
I wonder what it would cost to hire an engineering company (DECA?) to make one?
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 10:33 am
Re: external load stc
Perimeter just did one for a 206 in Thunder Bay. They spent quite a bit of time flying about with the loads on and off, numerous internal loads creating aft / forward c/g configurations, climbs, stalls, various other maneuvers. Pretty extensive program, flying took a couple of days. Don't know if it's for all single engine piston Cessna's or just the 206.
Hope this helps.
g
Hope this helps.
g
- Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: external load stc
.
Last edited by Cat Driver on Fri Jun 07, 2013 8:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 10:33 am
Re: external load stc
I hear ya Cat,
no kidding huh? We had to jump through hoops to "re-prove" our boat racks for our Otters. Really? I guess it's been a divine miracle that they haven't fallen out of the sky over the last 1/2 century +.
Forgot to mention. The holder of the stc will be KBM Forestry in Thunder Bay. I believe they'll be willing to sell copies.
g
no kidding huh? We had to jump through hoops to "re-prove" our boat racks for our Otters. Really? I guess it's been a divine miracle that they haven't fallen out of the sky over the last 1/2 century +.
Forgot to mention. The holder of the stc will be KBM Forestry in Thunder Bay. I believe they'll be willing to sell copies.
g
- Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: external load stc
.
Last edited by Cat Driver on Fri Jun 07, 2013 8:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 10:33 am
- Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: external load stc
.
Last edited by Cat Driver on Fri Jun 07, 2013 8:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: external load stc
What's new is that TC now requires an approval for it. Somebody tried to carry something they should have not, and it did not work - now there is a rule. It's "our" fault we're being regulated. (Well, at least the fault of the last guy who killed himself trying).Is carrying external loads on float planes something new that has never been done before?
I have done some external loads approval work, and it is not simple. Yes, there is a fair amount of flight testing. It would be very worthwhile for those who need these approvals to collaborate, and share the outcome for the common good. Doing these approvals one by one is going to cost much more than it should for operators.
The TC database of STC's can be searched here, for those who might have an interest:
http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/saf-sec-sur/2/n ... n/c_s.aspx
If you can find an STC, buying it is ususally the most economical way to go.
Re: external load stc
Sorry Cat Driver, but this is another example where your input is quite damaging. You sell yourself as a no-nonsense extremely experienced aviator who has enjoyed an accident free career by managing to avoid doing stupid things but the "culture" you are promoting here is not one of safety; it's one of ignorance.
It doesn't take a brain surgeon to understand why TC woke up to this entire external load business. A few aircraft have had instructions available for external loads for decades. The DHC-2 Beaver for example has approved drawings and procedures for canoes and lumber etc approved under the type certificate.
Over the years, many third party float installations have been approved on various aircraft without the accompanying instructions and/or airworthiness limitations required to carry external loads safely. The result was various accidents and incidents where external loads were improperly secured. Naturally, once in awhile operators placed the blame on Transport Canada for allowing this practice over a long time without proper guidelines.
Transport Canada in turn did the right thing both practically and in terms of liability and informed them they will start enforcing the need for proper approvals (like in the case of the DHC-2) for all aircraft external loads.
Cat Driver, you seem to imply that pilots are inherently capable of attaching external loads to aircraft without formal instruction. It's too bad. Many here consider you a role model, instead you are instilling phony courage into young pilots. I personally witnessed a near accident once when a helicopter company was tasked with moving a disabled aircraft from an area off field back to the airport. The load momentarily started gyrating out of control as the crew failed to "dirty up" the airfoil on the fixed wing load.
The pilot was able to reduce the airspeed and stabilize the load but it was touch and go for a bit. I certainly wouldn't wish that on any young pilot.
It doesn't take a brain surgeon to understand why TC woke up to this entire external load business. A few aircraft have had instructions available for external loads for decades. The DHC-2 Beaver for example has approved drawings and procedures for canoes and lumber etc approved under the type certificate.
Over the years, many third party float installations have been approved on various aircraft without the accompanying instructions and/or airworthiness limitations required to carry external loads safely. The result was various accidents and incidents where external loads were improperly secured. Naturally, once in awhile operators placed the blame on Transport Canada for allowing this practice over a long time without proper guidelines.
Transport Canada in turn did the right thing both practically and in terms of liability and informed them they will start enforcing the need for proper approvals (like in the case of the DHC-2) for all aircraft external loads.
Cat Driver, you seem to imply that pilots are inherently capable of attaching external loads to aircraft without formal instruction. It's too bad. Many here consider you a role model, instead you are instilling phony courage into young pilots. I personally witnessed a near accident once when a helicopter company was tasked with moving a disabled aircraft from an area off field back to the airport. The load momentarily started gyrating out of control as the crew failed to "dirty up" the airfoil on the fixed wing load.
The pilot was able to reduce the airspeed and stabilize the load but it was touch and go for a bit. I certainly wouldn't wish that on any young pilot.
Re: external load stc
Is the STC's only for commercial operators though ? A private guy can still do as he pleases correct ?
Re: external load stc
The aircraft requires the approval, so it does not matter who is operating it. I would actually imagine that TC was more likely to provide exemptions to commercial operators, as they would more likely demonstrate a system and training for the pilots. From my understanding, having attended the TC meetings at which these new regulations were publicly consulted, it was more the foolish behavior of private floatplane pilots which had attracted the attention of TC in more regulation being necessary.A private guy can still do as he pleases correct
Slung loads under helicopters are not captured by this regulation, though obviously experience and judgement are needed there too! The difference with slung loads being that there are other regulations which already cover that type of operation, and the pilot can drop the load.
Re: external load stc
Standards for external loads on helicopters are already captured thoroughly in helicopter design standards. The gap exists in fixed wing aircraft that have floats installed under a third party approval.
The design standards apply to all operators. It's only operating standards that may vary between commercial and private operators.
Maybe it's worthwhile for some of you to review the definition of "airworthy". Paraphrasing, airworthy means "safe for flight AND in conformity with the type design." It doesn't get simpler than that.
The design standards apply to all operators. It's only operating standards that may vary between commercial and private operators.
Maybe it's worthwhile for some of you to review the definition of "airworthy". Paraphrasing, airworthy means "safe for flight AND in conformity with the type design." It doesn't get simpler than that.
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 341
- Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:25 am
Re: external load stc
Thank you CID for your very well written responce to CATs ridicule of the regulations. I too am one of the older pilots who has either witnessed or been part of the pioneering of the beginning of aviation.
Training by standing between the pilots and observing until the chief pilot thinks all is well, flying as many as 5 types of aircraft in one day including a helicopter, and strapping on a load to the side of an aircraft are all things that were done in the past to get the job done at minimal cost but mostly out of ignorance and sometimes at the ultimate cost.
Blaming Transport Canada is a common thing when it involves change. And sometimes just to lash out at someone in frustration. TC cannot win. Think back to when the aircraft ran out fuel and crashed in the City of Winnipeg. One of the things the owner said (to the media yet!) was that it was TCs fault because they should have taken the Operating Certificate away sooner, Then there would have been no crash.
I hope our daughters and sons do not follow any out of date advice just like they must not use out of date publications. The days of barnstorming are gone forever. This is a very regulated industry using aircraft which will remain quite safe if we stay within the set boundaries. Not just Air Law, but the weight and balance, the Type Certificate the Operations Manual, SOPs and such.
Follow the regulations, sometimes the regulation maker knows what he or she is talking about. Sometimes it's us who do stupid things that trigger a change or a new rule.
Kids, The CAT may have 9 lives. You do not. When you hear 'Back in the day..." or 'When I was young...' or 'The way we used to ..." Run, don't walk away. You don't need that kind of input. Wouldn't it be somethng if we could shift the accident blame from pilot error to something else, but the only way that could work if we stop being test pilots and leave the testing of procedures to the ones we hire for that job.
Keep your flights boring, and get your excitement on you off time.
Sw
Training by standing between the pilots and observing until the chief pilot thinks all is well, flying as many as 5 types of aircraft in one day including a helicopter, and strapping on a load to the side of an aircraft are all things that were done in the past to get the job done at minimal cost but mostly out of ignorance and sometimes at the ultimate cost.
Blaming Transport Canada is a common thing when it involves change. And sometimes just to lash out at someone in frustration. TC cannot win. Think back to when the aircraft ran out fuel and crashed in the City of Winnipeg. One of the things the owner said (to the media yet!) was that it was TCs fault because they should have taken the Operating Certificate away sooner, Then there would have been no crash.
I hope our daughters and sons do not follow any out of date advice just like they must not use out of date publications. The days of barnstorming are gone forever. This is a very regulated industry using aircraft which will remain quite safe if we stay within the set boundaries. Not just Air Law, but the weight and balance, the Type Certificate the Operations Manual, SOPs and such.
Follow the regulations, sometimes the regulation maker knows what he or she is talking about. Sometimes it's us who do stupid things that trigger a change or a new rule.
Kids, The CAT may have 9 lives. You do not. When you hear 'Back in the day..." or 'When I was young...' or 'The way we used to ..." Run, don't walk away. You don't need that kind of input. Wouldn't it be somethng if we could shift the accident blame from pilot error to something else, but the only way that could work if we stop being test pilots and leave the testing of procedures to the ones we hire for that job.
Keep your flights boring, and get your excitement on you off time.
Sw
- Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: external load stc
.
Last edited by Cat Driver on Fri Jun 07, 2013 8:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: external load stc
Cat Driver, I don't know what statistics you've been looking at but your statement regarding "the accidents and the causes for the accidents" and how they aren't changing is pure unadulterated bovine excrement. There's just no nice way to put it.
It's not difficult to find these statistics if you care to look for them. The internet is a wonderful modern tool. You don't need to rely on hear-say and coffee break gossip. At an aviation safety event I attended a couple of years ago, a speaker stated that the number of aviation related fatalities and have stayed pretty much the same over the last 20 years. The number of injuries has been slowly declining. But.....the number of hours flown has risen 10-fold in the same period. And yes, he had the data to back it up.
In light of statistics like that, the only way you can say there hasn't been change for the better is if you've had your head buried firmly in the sand. And to further state that the regulators haven't helped is really a huge middle finger to some hard working people who aren't perfect but truly committed to safety.
To suggest there are no "experts" (sarcastically nonetheless) at the regulator level is ludicrous, childish and petty when you consider how long you've been in the business. There have been bumps in the road over the years but it's well proven that the continuous improvement of regulations, standards and oversight have had a great deal of benefit to aviation safety.
I know that some will feel I'm being harsh towards Cat Driver here. Although he's been quite vicious in personal attacks towards me in the past, this isn't payback or revenge. I am genuinely concerned that he is sending not only the wrong message but a very dangerous one to young people entering the industry.
I don't work FOR the regulator but I do work WITH them. I consider it a partnership. One that has ups and downs just like any relationship but overall it's a healthy approach. This "us" against "them" attitude you've adopted helps nobody.
It's not difficult to find these statistics if you care to look for them. The internet is a wonderful modern tool. You don't need to rely on hear-say and coffee break gossip. At an aviation safety event I attended a couple of years ago, a speaker stated that the number of aviation related fatalities and have stayed pretty much the same over the last 20 years. The number of injuries has been slowly declining. But.....the number of hours flown has risen 10-fold in the same period. And yes, he had the data to back it up.
In light of statistics like that, the only way you can say there hasn't been change for the better is if you've had your head buried firmly in the sand. And to further state that the regulators haven't helped is really a huge middle finger to some hard working people who aren't perfect but truly committed to safety.
To suggest there are no "experts" (sarcastically nonetheless) at the regulator level is ludicrous, childish and petty when you consider how long you've been in the business. There have been bumps in the road over the years but it's well proven that the continuous improvement of regulations, standards and oversight have had a great deal of benefit to aviation safety.
I know that some will feel I'm being harsh towards Cat Driver here. Although he's been quite vicious in personal attacks towards me in the past, this isn't payback or revenge. I am genuinely concerned that he is sending not only the wrong message but a very dangerous one to young people entering the industry.
I don't work FOR the regulator but I do work WITH them. I consider it a partnership. One that has ups and downs just like any relationship but overall it's a healthy approach. This "us" against "them" attitude you've adopted helps nobody.
- Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: external load stc
.
Last edited by Cat Driver on Fri Jun 07, 2013 8:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Colonel Sanders
- Top Poster
- Posts: 7512
- Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
- Location: Over Macho Grande
Re: external load stc
I don't know what we would do, ., if
we didn't have non-flying people on the
ground, telling us how to fly
Like going to a priest for marriage advice.
we didn't have non-flying people on the
ground, telling us how to fly
Like going to a priest for marriage advice.
- Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: external load stc
.
Last edited by Cat Driver on Fri Jun 07, 2013 8:55 am, edited 1 time in total.