SEIFR risk factors are what??

[CID]

I hadn't realized the Texas Fed-Ex machine, or for that matter, the Fed-EX Winnipeg machine were involved in hauling passengers, IFR??

They weren't. But the 208 is one of only 2 singles that are eligible for SEIFR in Canada. So the discussion is relevant.

Doc has the grasp of what I was asking here. When SEIFR airplanes crash it seems that the engine is almost always running.

Yes. The problem is the lack of data. SEIFR commerical ops in Canada hasn't been around long enough to build good stats regarding engine failure. I touched on this fact way back in this thread.

You know some people think that Concorde had an excellent safety record. The reality is that considering the number of aircraft in service and the flight hours, they had a dismal record.

The King Air B200's rate is at 0.94 accidents per 100,000 flight hours. The model has been flying since 1972 and close to 3000 have been delivered.

In the US, single turboprops have an accident rate of 1.99 accidents per 100,000 hours.

[oldncold]

HERE wee go Again

THERE is a difference between caravan in ice and a pc12
about 500 hp for starters

c.of g range is huge. most- but not all 12's are flown 2 crew, though most are single pilot rides.


most caravans are down in the sh.. though flying high is a good option IF
YOU HAVE THE TIME/DISTANCE to get up there. oh yah the oxygen as well.


single engine TURBINE commercial ops are as safe as anything else flying

the most important factor is what kind of wingnut is at the yoke.
one with good judgement or one without.

we all know what happens to good aircraft when the wrong wing nut gets behind the yoke
ALL THE laws in the land won't change the outcome of that scenario.

[bugspray]

we all know what happens to good aircraft when the wrong wing nut gets behind the yoke
ALL THE laws in the land won't change the outcome of that scenario.

So you are saying all the dead pilots from caravans are wingnuts. You got a lot of class.

[Cat Driver]

Bugspray :

He is only saying that pilot error is a cause of many accidents, two crew operations with recurrent training done properly will help to lower pilot error accidents.

It never ceases to amaze me the low level of pilot skills and ability to make good judgements that I see in aviation. The basic cause is poor training.

Cat

[bugspray]

I usually don't like to get involved in these debates Cat. I agree pilot error is the cause of many accidents. However, on that note, the end accident report many times blames pilot error when in fact it is well known that was NOT the cause. It's always an easy out to blame the dead pilot when they are not here to defend themselves. And that happens LOTS. I could name more than one accident, but i will not open this up to those cases. You of all people should know one in particular i am referring to, and that one in fact was 2 crew mulit engine. Point being, blame the dead pilot/s when they can as there is a lot less paper work and liability involved. Sad, but very true.

It never ceases to amaze me the low level of pilot skills and ability to make good judgements that I see in aviation. The basic cause is poor training.

And i couldn't agree with you more on that quote. It's bloody scary when i see whats going on in this industry with the low level of competency in some pilots. However i don't think its necssarily always poor training. Some people just don't "get it" and no amount of training will help them. When you get the attitude, "I know it all so i don't need to train", i am amazed they are signed off. I could rant on and on, but there is definitely an ego problem as well as a training problem with many of the pilots in this industry.

On that note, the White Sox win game 2... I say Sox in 6...

[Cat Driver]

Bugspray.

Yeh, there is always that easy out ot blame the pilots, no doubt about it.

Many times the underlying cause is these poor bastards were victims of intimidation who just compromized once to often due to fear of losing their job.

Sad but true.

Baseball is probably a more comforthig topic than this one.

Take care:

Cat

[ramp_monkey]

Airtids,

Late reply, but yes..I would fly over rocks IFR in a single turbine, say a PC12 or likewise. I have seen some of the twins flying would feel safer in one. Old twin? PT6? they are approved for a reason

[split s]

CID, you must change your name to "CID the quote master" or "quote king" or something like that!

[CID]

single engine TURBINE commercial ops are as safe as anything else flying

The FAA and TC don't even agree with that.

CID, you must change your name to "CID the quote master" or "quote king" or something like that!

Split-s, do you know of a better way to effectively respond to a statement in a forum? The quote function is just a tool. I think it's an effective one. If you disagree, then don't use the tools.

[basler]

Maybe it is SPIFR that should be taken away. I know blah blah anyone can drive a Van SPIFR....but really who can say they would not rather have an extra set of hands when you’re in the crap getting your ass kicked by turbulence.

What single pilot Van driver can honestly say that they could operate their plane safely in all circumstances? Lets say night IFR to mins, in ice and the have the cockpit light go so now you got your flashlight right…then just for kicks lets say your autopilot goes SOL.

Which Van driver can honestly say they would not want to have a 200hr guy there to hold the flashlight and chat on the radio for them? Not that it will happen everyday but I am assuming that engine fires don’t happen on every trip yet we plan for that and maybe losing the autopilot during night IFR ops in the winter happens more often….I don’t know I am not a rocket surgeon.

Maybe black hole problems could be taken away by a simple pos. rate call?

Maybe someone saying look at all the *$#%ing ice or snow on the wing?.?.?.?

[Doc]

I can say, I'm pretty comfy in a 'Van solo. Here's what I used to do. Night flying...if I'm not established at 1000 feet, I'm out of there. So, I needed a 1000 feet and 3-5 miles for night ops, single pilot. Company never had a problem with it, cuz I'd just stick to my guns. I can see having single pilot limits....maybe along the lines of the old Class 2 IFR rating? 800 and 2 for day ops, and 1000and3 for nite? While I feel single pilot ops are safe, it'll probably become a thing of the past. I know somebody will jump in here and quote a whole bunch or reasons why two pilots are safer than one....but the question was.....who can say they wouldn't want a 200 hour guy holding the flashlight?....answer..Me.

[basler]

You might not but its probably because you’re a social isolationist. Companys should lose money cause you will only fly the Van night single pilot ifr during vfr weather?

[Doc]

I'm not sure...was I insulted? You fly in your little world.....I'll fly in mine. Haven't lost any companies any money so far...you?
And there are more than a few single pilots who died pushing IFR wx at night to back me up on this?
I dont recall saying I would never fly with a 200 hour guy "holding the flashsight", I just said I'd rather not.
Some of you guys want a total end to single engine IFR ops. Others want an end to single pilot ops.....but mention raising single pilot limits...and that's a no-no...why?

[basler]

Doc I’ll agree with you whole heartily…I’ll never push a pilot or knock them for having personal limits. I like what you’re saying and especially with an engine failure I’d rather break out with a little altitude below me.

Now all I am saying is that if an FO would dispatch the Van in all IFR wx and single pilot would require VFR weather what’s the harm in the FO???

Also I was making this in regards to Mark….topic maybe it’s not the single fact maybe it’s the lack of proper crew coordination… and showing with your examples doc why a second pilot might help.

Also nakina’s van went down due to a coat on the trim control according to the TSB report unless it’s a different accident.

[Doc]

I hear ya. I guess a problem might be the limits...not the number of crew? Some of these GPS approaches are pretty low...and at nite..the visual clues can be pretty misleading....I'm talking the north, now...not YWG....but you know that.
Now, the coat on the trim? How's that??

[basler]

http://www.bst.gc.ca/en/reports/air/199 ... int_view=1

That’s the link for the nakina thing guess it was back in 97 so maybe we are not on the same page...

I agree on the gps thing and I know what you mean I did a little flying up north around CYCB, CYCO.... You get the picture...nothing like a little night circling on the 200hrs side

Sorry also with the limits thing maybe an FO saying 500 100 mins would help with the nite reference?

[arctic navigator]

Doc, sounds to me like the direction your heading is towards approach bans, and maybe thats what should be in place, even if its just for single pilot night ops... I still think this whole debate comes down to the fact that the pilot has to KNOW and ACCEPT the limitations of his or her aircraft as well as themselves...

oh, and there are 3 SE turbines approved for commercial ops in canada, you forgot the TBM 700

[grouchy]

Could it be not a question of the engine but rather the airplane? Are Caravans booted "properly" for ice?
CID "SEIFR commerical ops in Canada hasn't been around long enough to build good stats regarding engine failure. "
Ten years and 26 deaths, I've read somewhere.

Sometimes bad ideas are just bad ideas.
Not going for the off tangent here but Doc was of the opinion on another thread about the 747 emergency landing that the 500 people should have been deplaned in a smoke emergency. I would think that would be a good idea considering how fast the Airbus in YYZ burned.
Some thought not.

[marktheone]

Well believe it or not CID gave me the answer. It is that SEIFR in turbine of course is no more dangerous than TEIFR. If there is a problem it is clearly pilot training of when to go versus when not to go. Therefore it would seem kind of pointless to ban SEIFR ops as the same guy, single pilot, will still f_ck it up, even if he had 10 engines.

That is what I thought but only TC would try and fix it by banning SEIFR ops. The problem clearly lies in training. Doc I think your idea of bringing back the higher Single pilot min's might be a good one. Anyone with expeirience will agree that it can pretty damn hairy at night, ifr in ice.

Just my 2 pennies!!
Take care, Mark

[CD]

Didn't we have this discussion once before a few months ago? Ah yes, here it is:

The end of the Caravan/PC-12

Single- and twin-turbine accident rates similar - October 2001

That is what I thought but only TC would try and fix it by banning SEIFR ops.

Is the discussion linked above to the Caravan/PC12 where you think that a SEIFR ban is being proposed? If not, do you have any links or references to such a proposal?

[CID]

Wow CD. You have an excellent memory. I don't recall much of that. It's interesting to (re)read it all from the perspective of a couple of months ago and see much of the same stuff debated.

Good catch.

[Hedley]

CID & CD: You two can probably locate each other here:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/directory/edirectory.htm

[Cat Driver]

CD :

Someone I know in TC was moved from M&M to "Safety Integrated Management. "

That is a new department to me, or rather I never heard of it before.

What exactly would that person do in such a position?

Cat

[CID]

Hedley I believe one good turn deserves another. If anyone wants to find Hedley, look here:

http://www.tsb.gc.ca

If you don't find him there now, just keep checking. With his attitude he'll show up sooner or later.

By the way Hedley, why did you remove your website from your profile? It was there yesterday. Are you trying to hide something?

[Hedley]

Anyone have a URL for a database of Canadian Pilot Licences? That's one place I'll wager we won't ever find CID

P.S. What profile? My website: http://www.pittspecials.com

Please stop by CYSH, my cowardly friend, and give me the benefit of your vast store of knowledge.