Fedex Caravan down in Texas

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 12:55 pm

Is it just me, or is half this thread either CID, or people with enough time on their hands to argue with him/her?? Hey CID....can you actually fly?

. . · Post by **. .** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:01 pm

Airtids: I totally agree with you. I'd imagine that the average Canadian navajo, islander, whatever else would do about 75% of the book value. So with respect to safety saying that a Navajo that can't maintain altitude on one engine is massively more safe than a PC-12 is questionable.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:05 pm

I'd rather be over the tundra in a Navajo on one, than a PC12 on none. But, that's just me. Some people like the "Sounds of silence."

Airtids · Post by **Airtids** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:38 pm

Except that book on a Chieftain is 13500 single engine. Rather be able to hold 75% of that (10,000') than 0% of that. Talk to the King Air crew that overtemped on their way into CYXC and see how they were feeling. My guess is they were sweating bullets!! I'm with Doc, I'd really rather have the second fan at least giving me range to other options. Suffice it to say, that in either case, the prospects look bad.

Yoyoma · Post by **Yoyoma** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 2:50 pm

Doc wrote:I'd rather be over the tundra in a Navajo on one, than a PC12 on none. But, that's just me. Some people like the "Sounds of silence."

Hello darkness my old friend...I've come to talk with you again...

CID · Post by **CID** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:01 pm

That said though, even the good ones will have degradation of preformace figures towards the end of the service life of their engines.

So first is was age (70's versus present time) and now its engine life. Which is it?

Either way, if your 'ho doesn't make take-off power you're not supposed to go. Endless, this isn't rocket science. If you take off in a PA-31 that is overloaded for the ops rules or doesn't meet the published performance you are taking a huge risk and taking innocent passenger with you. What world do I live in? The one that the flying public deserves. The one where airplanes are properly maintained and pilots aren't idiots. The world where companies like Skyward go away eventually.

Is it just me, or is half this thread either CID, or people with enough time on their hands to argue with him/her?? Hey CID....can you actually fly?

Well, the way I see it, there are an awful lot of dangerous pilots on this forum who don't know or understand the rules and make very stupid and dangerous assumptions about what is normal or acceptable.

I respond accordingly. So Doc, besides my opinions, what exactly did I post that was wrong? Personally, I think I may have helped a bunch of guys realize a few things. Like how you load your aircraft in 703 ops.

totally agree with you. I'd imagine that the average Canadian navajo, islander, whatever else would do about 75% of the book value.

Are you kidding me? You are you saying that the average Navajo can't meet the published performance? And you just get in and fly it? Don't you do a runup and set your power according to the charts? You are scaring the shit out of me endless.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:20 pm

Gee CID, you have all the answers. How about giving me a little dual? I could use a demonstration of single engine ops, and maybe a VMC demo?

And who are all these dangerous pilots? In your learned opinion?

Sure, CID, we all do full power static run-up in deep gravel, just to check the numbers....on every flight!

CID · Post by **CID** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:24 pm

Doc, typical.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:25 pm

Typical? Where's my flying lesson?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 5:53 pm

Quote dash 2/3 :

" 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. "

And may I add, quit right there, finding another job beats killing yourself because you don't have the courage to say no.

Cat

rd1331 · Post by **rd1331** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 5:59 pm

CID, Airframes naturally twist and warp overtime. And that has nothing to do with the maintenance of the airplane, they just do. How many wings have you seen that look as flush and smooth as the day they came off the line. Just about all aircraft will not meet the book values in the P.O.H. Just look at the guy with the 337. He said his maintained perfectly, it didn't maintain the book value. Close is not close enough, either you meet them or don't. And most planes don't.

How many boots have you seen without patches in them and are as smooth as the day they came off the line. How many wings have you seen without dings and small dents in them. All of these small items will lower the performance of the aircraft. Maybe a small percentage, but lets say it lowers it 10%. Thats the difference between 9000 and 10000ft.

So i guess in your world no aircraft in Canada should be flying. A new anything compared to a 30,000hr anything will NOT perform the same.

CID · Post by **CID** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 7:19 pm

CID, Airframes naturally twist and warp overtime.

Some may. That is why symmetry tests are performed. I've seen some airplanes that were removed from service because they were out of symmetry following an accident etc.

Close is not close enough, either you meet them or don't. And most planes don't.

Really? Have you ever seen the damage tolerances in structural repair manuals? I think there are a few AMEs out there that would disagree with you.

How many boots have you seen without patches in them and are as smooth as the day they came off the line.

Believe it or not, the manufacturer takes that into account when producing performance figures. That is why they have limits to the amount of patches you can add before you replace the boot.

How many wings have you seen without dings and small dents in them. All of these small items will lower the performance of the aircraft. Maybe a small percentage, but lets say it lowers it 10%. Thats the difference between 9000 and 10000ft.

OK. Now I know you don't know what you are talking about. Lowering an airplane's "performance" by 10%? What does that mean exactly? How did you translate that into altitude?

Imperfections in the airframe induce drag and defintely have an effect on performance. But if you think 10% is a number that would be acceptable in ANY circumstances, I don't want to fly with you.

I repeat; Performance charts aren't printed on calendars. If your airplane performance can't meet the charts, then you are overloaded, or your maintenance sucks.

Springbok · Post by **Springbok** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 8:09 pm

Cat Driver wrote:Quote dash 2/3 :

" 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. "

And may I add, quit right there, finding another job beats killing yourself because you don't have the courage to say no.

Cat

These are the truest words uttered so far on this whole thread...commit them to memory.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 8:13 pm

Was there a Caravan crash in Texas or somewhere? Cant seem to find any referance to it. Too busy wading through all the bull shit, and ground school lessons?

ice ice baby · Post by **ice ice baby** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 9:20 pm

So let's say you are flying off a grass strip in any 30 year old plane. You do the math. Say given the weather etc. you need 2990 feet for a short and soft field take off......you have 3000 feet and water on each side ...river...lake...ocean whatever.

Do you think it would be smart and SAFE to takeoff or do something about it. Such as wait till it cools in the summer...more wind...less fuel or payload

Driving Rain · Post by **Driving Rain** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 9:43 pm

ice ice baby wrote:So let's say you are flying off a grass strip in any 30 year old plane. You do the math. Say given the weather etc. you need 2990 feet for a short and soft field take off......you have 3000 feet and water on each side ...river...lake...ocean whatever.

Do you think it would be smart and SAFE to takeoff or do something about it. Such as wait till it cools in the summer...more wind...less fuel or payload

Hell, I'd wait till they paved it but that's just me.

. . · Post by **. .** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 12:06 am

Limit to the amount of patches? you mean of course as many as you want over the entire space of the boot as long as the patches aren't over lapping? Because correct me if I'm wrong, that's the rule.

Yoyoma · Post by **Yoyoma** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 8:16 am

ice ice baby wrote:So let's say you are flying off a grass strip in any 30 year old plane. You do the math. Say given the weather etc. you need 2990 feet for a short and soft field take off......you have 3000 feet and water on each side ...river...lake...ocean whatever.

Do you think it would be smart and SAFE to takeoff or do something about it. Such as wait till it cools in the summer...more wind...less fuel or payload

What?? with 10 feet to go? I'd simply plow down the strip and use the last 10 feet to wiggle/rock the wings while giving a Top Gun like salute!

CID · Post by **CID** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 8:18 am

Limit to the amount of patches? you mean of course as many as you want over the entire space of the boot as long as the patches aren't over lapping? Because correct me if I'm wrong, that's the rule.

You're wrong. And you're dangerous.

Too busy wading through all the bull shit, and ground school lessons?

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

. . · Post by **. .** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 8:56 am

what is the law then?

CID · Post by **CID** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 9:14 am

The "law" is that to maintain the validity of a C of A, the airplane has to be "in a fit and safe state for flight and in conformity with its type design". The type design includes the TC and any approved modifications on the airplane that include instructions for continued airworthiness.

That means that if there are any repairs that aren't in the maintenance manual or other "approved" or "specified" document, then the C of A is no longer in force.

Maintenance Manuals for any aircraft I know with pneumantic de-ice systems contain instructions for repairing the system including limitations which may include the maximum patch size and density.

I know of a few airplanes that have been grounded following a TC audit because there were too many patches on the boots.

. . · Post by **. .** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 9:26 am

well the DOM at the last company I flew at told me that the maximum amout of patches on the type I was flying was only limited by overlapping patches. So unless you can post something less vauge I'll go by what he said.

(=

CID · Post by **CID** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 9:38 am

endless,

I assume your conversation with the DOM went something like this:

endless: Hey, what's with all these patches on the boots? I don't know if I feel comfortable taking off in this airplane.

DOM: Um..er..um..hey I don't make the rules. And rules say I can put as many on as I want as long as they don't overlap.

endless: Those god damned pencil pushers in the golden tower in Ottawa don't know shit. Oh well. These old airplanes are like old cars. They don't go as fast or climb as quick or do anything as good as they did driving out the showroom, so I'll ignore the performance charts and use a little "common sense".

DOM: Yah. That sounds like real good advice. I mean, what could go wrong. I use common sense all the time when I fix airplanes. Like for instance, why but $3 bolts from Aviall when I can get the same thing at Canadian Tire for half that! Oh, by the way. The left alternator doesn't work but you only need one so I took out the fail bulb for it so it doesn't bother you. Oh...and the #1 COM doesn't work but I figured you can only talk on one at a time anyway. And since the days are long in the summer, I figured you didn't need the instrument lights working either. Common sense right?

endless: Umm..yah. Common sense.

Endless, the next time I roll into the office, I'll see if I can dig up something for you.

The Old Fogducker · Post by **The Old Fogducker** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 11:26 am

Yup, Endless has it right.

All that useless time spent in groundschool on airplane systems, company indoc, icing procedures, CRM, human factors, etc is pure unadulterated BS. Oh, and that airplane specific training? What a load of smelly crud that is .... anybody who holds a licence should be able to just hop in and head off over the horizon with a load.

After all, if it weren't for that stuff you could be out there making money on that day instead of doing stupid things like writing exams. Any pilot worth his daily mileage pay with no base salary should just be able to figure all that stuff out by himself if he had anything whatsoever on the ball. Oh, and I hope that on the Flight and Duty Times records that you counted that as a day off because you weren't making money for the company and logging time in your logbook.

The whole training system is just set up to put big bundles of cash in the pockets of those fat cat schools and/or company training pilots ... who don't have a clue about the "real world" anyway.

I think we should just start our flying careers with maybe a max of 20 hours dual and after that we just hire the survivors of a couple of hundred hours of solo flying in 1/8 mile vis in the rocks during flat light conditions or maybe night VFR. Also, those float guys should do a hundred hours of time on the coast landing in 6 ft swells with 2 to 3 ft waves on top of that ... and do it crosswind just for the entertainment value.

We should also go back to a straight mileage pay system to encourage trip completion. Going to an alternate should be "just cause" for immediate dismissal to make room for one of those "real pilots" who have a resume sitting in the filing cabinet. We should model our commercial flight operations on Bomber Harris' Thousand Plane Raids when anything with two wings and engines that would start was launched on a bomb mission. After all, the Legion halls and ANAVETS are full of guys that survived those flights so what's the big deal? How dare we think our movement of drill rod or pax is any less important than intercepting a U Boat near a troop convoy in the North Atlantic.

Also, those fare paying passengers these days are just too pampered and the pilots that fly them around aren't real pilots like the days of Waldo Pepper. Do you know how hard it is to find a decent pilot who will do a nice barrel roll on a sked flight? All wimps with the enthusiasm beaten out of them by a training system run by Bozo The Clown wannabes.

I salute you Endless. You've got this stuff aced. Might I suggest that you cut your operational flying career short and join the DOT? They could use somebody who understands the real world at the top of that organization to whip those inspectors into shape. Maybe start off by firing about 2/3 of them just get the attention of the remainder and then cut out all their silly training courses. Who the hell needs 'em anyway?

That way, we can get back to what this industry is all about.

Fog

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 11:43 am

Fog.....that is NOT what endless SAID, MEANT or IMPLIED!!! And you know it!