Fedex Caravan down in Texas

[cyyz]

Until then, i stand by my position to fly the caravan VFR ONLY....

It's not a TC or FAA issue to me, it comes down to 3 groups.

Operators, obviously these million dollar corps did a cost analysis and have come to the conclusion it's more affordable to maintain and possibly lose a million dollar SE aircraft.

Pilots, obviously have done some soul searching and are willing to fly SEIFR.

Insurance, have done the same cost analysis and have come up with a rate for SEIFR operators that's reasonable enough and continue to generate profits to pay off all the claims and lawsuits...

And since ALL the 3 groups want to do it for whatever reasons it must obviously make sense.

my 2 cents..

[CID]

I hate to sound negative all the time but here is my take.

SEIFR:

Operators: EVERYONE inlcluding operators want to minimize expenses and it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that a single engine airplane is cheaper to operate than a comparable twin engine airplane. It's also cheaper to operate an airplane without a copilot or flight attendants.

Pilots: If you can find a pilot will pay for his PPC to advance his career, you can find one that will accept a higher level of risk for awhile flying SEIFR even if that little voice deep inside is screaming otherwise.

Insurance: Insurers rely on statistics to determine risk and formulate reasonable premiums. Sometimes, they get crappy data and end up paying for it later on. Like with air shows. The strong lobby from the aircraft manufacturers were successful in convincing the regulator to support them in their plea to the insurance companies. You can bet the same insurance companies are watching each Caravan that falls out of the sky. And don't you find it curious that Cessna refuses to sell Caravans to Commuter/Air Taxi operators?

[desksgo]

And don't you find it curious that Cessna refuses to sell Caravans to Commuter/Air Taxi operators?

Hi CID, that's a new one on me, I've never heard that. I've got a friend who works here, and he claims they got their van from Cessna directly:

https://www.linearair.com/

They do scheduled and charter runs too.


I've just never heard that before. Can you point me to where you got this information?

[CID]

First of all Desksgo, let me clarify what I said. I should have restricted the comment to sales in the US. I didn't and I apologize. However, I though anyone who has made it this far in the thread would have read all the previous threads before posting comments.

Now for the answer. The following statement is contained in the post by Hot Fuel:

Doman said Cessna does not actively market the Caravan to the U.S. air-taxi industry. He described that position as a “corporate decision,” not based on any accident or incident history. The airplane by regulation is permitted to fly air taxi, including carrying fare-paying passengers in IMC, but Doman said Cessna over the years has become “very sensitive” to product liability in the U.S.

There are many air-taxi Caravans in operation outside the U.S., “But if someone were to come to us for a new Caravan for flying paying passengers between Chicago and Minneapolis, we would respectfully decline the sale.” Overseas, however, Cessna encourages sales to this market. And that market potential is just waiting for some promised rulemaking relief.

If you want to verify it, check out the following link:

http://www.ainonline.com/issues/10_01/1 ... npg28.html

Maybe the fact that Linear air flys between Boston and Teterboro and not Minneapolis and Chicago makes a difference. The reference is a bit dated (2001) so maybe policy has changed since then. Or the marketing guy for Caravans has since been fired.



This article has been referred to quite often lateley as a result of the recent fatal Caravan accident in Winnipeg.

Cheers

P.S. I have a question for your friend at Linear Air. Do they book "round" trips?

[Dust Devil]

SONICBLUE
AKA.
REGENCY EXPRESS
AKA.
NORTH VANCOUVER AIR



they fly a caravan everyday from CYVR to CYAZ with passengers over mountains and ocean...hmmm..

Ya not quite following your point?

[Dust Devil]

I hate to sound negative all the time but here is my take.

SEIFR:

Operators:It's also cheaper to operate an airplane without a copilot or flight attendants.

what are you getting at here?

[CID]

what are you getting at here?

Dust Devil,

My point is that just because its cheaper doesn't mean it's the smart thing to do. Removing the copilot or flight attendants would result in a huge decrease in the level of safety in my opinion.

Agree or disagree?

[Dust Devil]

what are you getting at here?

Dust Devil,

My point is that just because its cheaper doesn't mean it's the smart thing to do. Removing the copilot or flight attendants would result in a huge decrease in the level of safety in my opinion.

Agree or disagree?

Depending on the situation. Should an airliner have flight attendants and a co-pilot yes I agree.

should a small twin eg. Navajo be staffed with flight attendants Get real.
and having an extra pilot in a navajo just adds more weight than what the airplane needs at that time.

Not all rules apply to all aircraft.

[Donald]

Compare that to what happens in a crappy old piston twin after
takeoff. The pilot holds the same pitch attitude, the airspeed bleeds
off below Vmc, and rolls upside down and everybody dies.

Not to mention that far too many of the crappy old piston twins are operated by companies with questionable maintenance practices, pilots who are pressured to fly overweight, into icing conditions for which they may or may not be certified.

Question regarding the stats: If a twin pilot has one fail, and they chose not to declare an emergency, then landed safely; would this be reflected in the stats?

[CID]

should a small twin eg. Navajo be staffed with flight attendants Get real.

No no no. That's not what I was talking about at all. I was thinking about large airplane ops when I wrote that. Maybe I should have made it clearer.

[Vickers vanguard]

So you won't see me buying a ticket to fly on a Van or a PC-12 in Canada. I don't want to be part of that experiment.

.........I second you on that.....and I will include twin piston non-radial...( navajo and the shit like that.....)

[Shady McSly]

settle down.

[Doc]

Correct me if I'm wrong here...I know you will...a Navajo/402 etc are under no obligation to meet climb segment requirements single engine. Read into that as you will.
Although I have a chunk of time on the 'Van , I would not book my family on one. The same goes for the PC12. Nothing less than a King or a twin turbine equiped aircraft. Why? Because I bloody well can!
I disagree with pretty much everything Richard Collins writes. But you are safer in a contoller dead stick in a single, than an overloaded light twin flown improperly on one engine....the crash will be slower...and right side up!
A loaded Navajo, etc. will actually fly on one engine.....in factory test conditions, with a new airpland, on a standard day, at sea level, with a factory trained test pilot....not a 1500 hour wonder, at night, just slightly under? gross weight! You're a noisy glider..no more..no less.
I'm amazed that MOH uses PC12's for medevacs.....because one day soon, well, you know....it's going to become a glider...has to. Maybenot tomorrow, or next week? But if you think it'll never happen, you're a dreamer. Has to.
Conclusions...turbine twins are safer than turbine singles...DUH!
Piston twins are only safe if flown a good chunk under gross, or by a an "ace" over flat terrain.
I would not get into a single of any breed IMC.
No problems with single pilot ops.....but that's just me.

[charlie_g]

If you read what Collins writes, he states that PILOTS of twin engine aircraft do a particularly poor job of handling engine failures which result in their higher fatality rates. Well trained pilots, like those mentioned by Cat and Dust Devil, will handle an engine failure to a non-event conclusion.

I do read what Collins writes, and part of his argument is that the theoretical increased safety of a twin is a moot point when the pilot is incapable of flying engine-out with the proper technique, or if the plane is overloaded.

As demonstrated by the ZKE PA31 crash recently discussed on this board, pilot technique may or may not save you (nobody knows at this point if the pilot handled that correctly), especially if you're flying overloaded, as so many often do. No amount of pilot training will save you when you blatantly ignore the black and white numbers, based in physics, that were used to certify the airplane.

[hz2p]

.

[split s]

Everyone has their own opinion on SEIFR, some are very opinionated and think SEIFR pilots are idiots for doing so( for lack of a better word). I would be interested to see how many of you would stay and fly vans or pc12's if your company went to only these types!

[Doc]

Pay me 65-70K per year...good benefit package....weekends off. New or low time Caravans....sign me up. Of course, I wont fly in situations that I consider outside the capabilities of either myself or the aircraft!

[hz2p]

.

[Driving Rain]

25 years ago I did suppression in a 1340 powered DHC-3. With a 1/4 century of hindsight, IDIOT is a good word to describe what I was doing. I wouldn't do that now for all the tea in China even with a "turbine" powered one.

Too soon old, too late smart.

[Airtids]

If you read what Collins writes, he states that PILOTS of twin engine aircraft do a particularly poor job of handling engine failures which result in their higher fatality rates. Well trained pilots, like those mentioned by Cat and Dust Devil, will handle an engine failure to a non-event conclusion.

I do read what Collins writes, and part of his argument is that the theoretical increased safety of a twin is a moot point when the pilot is incapable of flying engine-out with the proper technique, or if the plane is overloaded.

As demonstrated by the ZKE PA31 crash recently discussed on this board, pilot technique may or may not save you (nobody knows at this point if the pilot handled that correctly), especially if you're flying overloaded, as so many often do. No amount of pilot training will save you when you blatantly ignore the black and white numbers, based in physics, that were used to certify the airplane.

g- I agree with you. Let's take this a step further: The theoretical increase of safety offered by a turbine (single or twin) also becomes a moot point if a ham-fisted pilot can't handle it well enough to take advantage of the huge benefits that increase in safety offers.

More often than not, the pilot is the weakest link. Look at the accident reports and you'll agree that pilot error (taking off over gross IS pilot error) is cited as the cause more than any other single issue. Proper training changes that scenario. Training means ensuring that the pilot does NOT blatantly ignore the black and white certification numbers (even to the point of actually understanding where they came from and what they mean), NOT flying outside of the envelope, and also has the ability to make the decision of when to say NO. Proper training ensures the pilot is skilled and knowledgable enough to fly the airplane to the limits of it's performance and safety, whether in normal or emergency operations.

The best piece of safety equipment on ANY airplane is a well trained pilot. The best trained pilot on the planet, however, wouldn't stand a chance SEIFR IMC in the mountains with a failed engine. Given the option of placing my family on a turbine single or a piston twin, each flown by my definition of a well trained pilot, I'll take the piston twin.

[rd1331]

First of all a TURBINE twin is safer than a Turbine Single. No one can argue that.

As for the piston twin turbine single argument. How many piston twins will maintain MOCA over the BC mountains when they are at gross weight, and don't give me book figures, they are bullSh%t. Exactly.

Now i have well over 2000hours PIC in the van. Never had a engine problem to the point of shut down. I still wouldn't fly over the mountains nor would i do it in a clapped out POS piston twin.

Put me anywhere east of the rocks and I'll giver SEIFR. Just don't tell me to do it into forcast Moderate Icing or greater, or where i'll be cruising in it, because you can shove it.

As for the ditching, I've know 3 vans that have ditched due to Overloading, Bad Weather (pilot claims micro-bust, more likely flew into water at night 100ft ceiling 1/2 vis. you get the picture), and the last one was an engine failure due to dumb ass mechanic's who fucked up when putting the power turbine back on after a hot sections and stripped the bolts. Every single one, no one was killed, and the biggest injury was a broken sholder on the pilot of the Overloaded one. Everyone else walked away, most without even scratches, and of course a little wet. 2 of them stayed upright, one flipped. Ohya and they where all Overloaded but the one was 3000lbs overloaded. Some operators are just stupid, hense why i decided to leave before i became a stat.

Now show me some twin stats that will say the same about them ditching.

The Caravan is a very safe aircraft and I would say its built to a higher standard than most twins. Now of course it a Turbine Twin will have a better record for forced landing, but when it comes to it, i would rather be in a van.

Ohya same company had Piston Twins, had 3 accidents same areas, no one survived any of them.

People think that a twin even a piston twin is a magical carpet that will get you where you need to go if one quits. I think the stats on the piston twin will show you different. Contemplation kills, thats all the second engine in a piston twin does. At least over the mountains. Because you aint gonna stay above those peaks, the second one is just there to burn off more fuel so when you crash you have less gas.

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

Well rant over.

[CID]

As for the piston twin turbine single argument. How many piston twins will maintain MOCA over the BC mountains when they are at gross weight, and don't give me book figures, they are bullSh%t. Exactly.

I see there needs to be some clarification inserted here. I was careful to use terms like "comparable" when I talk about twins and singles that are approved for IFR ops.

CAR 703 states:

Enroute Limitations

703.32 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.

So we aren't talking about Twin Comanches or friggen Beech Travelaires.

The part that deals with SEIFR ops is:

Transport of Passengers in Single-engined Aircraft

703.22 (1) Subject to subsection (2), no air operator shall operate a single-engined aircraft with passengers on board in IFR flight or in night VFR flight.

(2) An air operator may operate a single-engined aircraft with passengers on board in IFR flight or in night VFR flight if the air operator

(a) is authorized to do so in its air operator certificate; and

(b) complies with the Commercial Air Service Standards.

The applicable standards says:

723.22 Transport of Passengers in Single-Engined Aeroplanes

The standard for transport of passengers in a single-engined aeroplane under IFR or VFR at night is:

(1) General

(a) only factory built, turbine-powered aeroplanes are permitted;

(b) the turbine-engine of the aeroplane type must have a proven Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) of .01/1000 or less established over 100,000 hours in service; and

(c) pilot training in accordance with subsection 723.98(24).
(amended 2000/12/01; previous version)

(2) Aeroplane Equipment Requirements

(a) two attitude indicators which are powered separately and independently from each other;

(b) two independent power generating sources, either of which is capable of sustaining essential flight instruments and electrical equipment;

(c) an auto-ignition system, or alternatively, the Company Operations Manual must specify that continuous ignition must be selected "ON" for take-off, landing and flight in heavy precipitation;

(d) a chip detector system to warn the pilot of excessive ferrous material in the entire engine lubrication system in all regimes of flight;
(amended 2003/06/01; previous version)

(e) a radar altimeter;

(f) a manual throttle which bypasses the governing section of the fuel control unit and permits continued unrestricted operation of the engine in the event of a fuel control unit failure;

(g) sufficient supplemental oxygen to allow for an optimal glide profile during an engine out let-down from 25,000 feet until a cabin altitude of 13,000 feet;
(amended 2003/06/01; no previous version)

(h) an electronic means of rapidly determining and navigating to the nearest suitable aerodrome for an emergency landing; and
(amended 2003/06/01; no previous version)

(i) sufficient emergency electrical supply to power essential electrical systems, including auto pilot flight instruments and navigation systems, following engine failure throughout the entirety of a descent at optimal glide speed and configuration from the aeroplane’s operating level to mean sea level.
(amended 2003/06/01; no previous version)

So if you want to operate SEIFR, you need a radio altimeter whether you think it's a good idea or not.

So what is safer? And remember we are talking about commecial SEIFR ops that are only allowed in the air taxi category. Not a Cessna 150. Not your uncle's homebuilt. Is it safer to fly IFR ops in a piston twin capable of maintaining MOCA with one engine failed or is it safer to ride in a turbine single with a good engine TBO that will maintain another kind of MOCA (major obstruction collision altitude) when the fan fails?

In my opinion, no. But now that we are aware of the real issues and the relevant types of airplanes we can have a more meaningful discussion.

[split s]

Does the caravan have a RAD ALT.?

[Doc]

Most do...but they only tell you what's under your ass...not the cliff your twelve!

[cyyz]

So what is safer?

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...

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

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?