Following the rules to suit your mood.

. ._ · Post by **. ._** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 5:56 pm

You mean you wouldn't fly this one, Hedley?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYAVLfuU ... ed&search=

-istp

North of You · Post by **North of You** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:56 pm

As I have stated before: I see nothing wrong with what these folks did. The role was smothe and in control and obviously done by someone who know what they were doing. And not done over down town Cenrtreville. What I chafe at is this mentality that this kind of behavior will lead to death and destruction , because it is illegal and outside of the established norm. That may well be. But there are strange things that happen in the northern sun.

As I have stated before, rules are broken all of the time in the north on a day to day basis. Example: a very reputable company had a northern destination on it’s sked which had no published approach. Yet the guys routinely flew there every day. Both IFR and VFR, breaking the rules every time they went in, when the weather was below sector.

The stresses exerted on the airframe in question doing the barrel role were no worse than the average landing, Are you going to tell me that what you witnessed on the tape was worse than your average landing on a 3500 strip with a 1900? I have seen fare worse in conditions flying though a cell then I saw on this tape. Then to lend credence to your argument you bring out an example of an AD on an AC with over 17,000 hours on it and say that these cracks in the spar will happen when you do said role. Your day to day operations are far more stressful then what these folks put their AC through on this particular day.

wingtip · Post by **wingtip** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:37 pm

Hedley wrote:
I have flown transport aircraft whos G meters exceed -5-+10 in heavy turbulence
Holy Crap! You're saying -5G and +10G?! There must have been quite a few serious injuries and an incredible mess in the cabin afterwards.

I don't care if it was inspected, I ain't flying in an aircraft who's ultimate G limit has been exceeded. Metal has memory, and someone's going to pay down the road.

Correct on some injuries and the cabin mess. The wings were disassembled, closely measured and inspected and re-skinned. But the same tortured fuselage and empennage...

The Tool · Post by **The Tool** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:02 pm

North of You wrote: Then to lend credence to your argument you bring out an example of an AD on an AC with over 17,000 hours on it and say that these cracks in the spar will happen when you do said role. Your day to day operations are far more stressful then what these folks put their AC through on this particular day.

I put the AWD reference out there... Did I say anything that you are saying I said?

The 1900s do have many hours.. Did the damage come from rolling them? Probably not. I would guess some other form of stress or inherent flaw is causing the failure.

I thought my point was so obvious that I didn't have to spell it out.... There can be undiscovered, serious defects in an aircraft. Taking the aircraft outside of is certified flight envelope could accelerate the pending failure.

Further I also believe it is unfair, nor proper, to compare hard landing stresses, turbulence stress etc. as a qualifier to give the OK to drive the aircraft in manner it was not designed to do. G loading can be equivalent to your mentioned hard landing. However stress paths and loading can be completely different.

Please stop arguing with the engineering certification standards that these aircraft are built to. An aircraft that is type certified to a category that doesn't include aerobatic maneuvers should not have such maneuvers performed on it.

If it has been taken out of the certified design it takes particular action to make that aircraft airworthy again.

Normally I just lurk around on this web site. Say the odd thing. Disagree quietly to myself. For some reason the ‘I am smarter than the guys who built these things’ attitude is down right disturbing to me. I hope that I am not alone in my thinking.

I only hope and pray that the few expressing these opinions here are either trolling or at the very least a rarity.

wingtip · Post by **wingtip** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:17 pm

Good post TT.

Spokes · Post by **Spokes** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 7:35 am

North of You wrote:As I have stated before, rules are broken all of the time in the north on a day to day basis. Example: a very reputable company had a northern destination on it’s sked which had no published approach. Yet the guys routinely flew there every day. Both IFR and VFR, breaking the rules every time they went in, when the weather was below sector.

Are you sure that they do not have a company IFR approach that they are useing? Just a thouhgt.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 7:43 am

" However stress paths and loading can be completely different. "

Exactly.

So North of You, if you fly for a company would you want them to read your ideas on how to fly airplanes here on Avcanada?

just curious · Post by **just curious** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 7:52 am

Given the way Beech wings are bolted on with the spar bolts running left right instead of fore and aft, a crew would have to be ill-informed and extremely lucky to get away with rolling it. Compounding it, is that if they were that unaware of the airframe limitations, their aerobatic knowledge would be equally poor.

My copliments to the 1900 crew for surviving. It appeared to be more good luck than good management however.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 8:21 am

J.C. , heard a roumor the North of You is looking for a job flying with you.

North of You · Post by **North of You** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 8:43 am

Cat Driver wrote: " However stress paths and loading can be completely different. "

Exactly.

So North of You, if you fly for a company would you want them to read your ideas on how to fly airplanes here on Avcanada?

And the dreaded thought police makes itself heard. What does this have to do with the argument in question? Sounds like the reaction of a person running out of ideas to me. "I'm telling your mommy"!

[/quote]I thought my point was so obvious that I didn't have to spell it out.... There can be undiscovered, serious defects in an aircraft. Taking the aircraft outside of is certified flight envelope could accelerate the pending failure.

My point was so obvious that I didn't think I had to spell it out either. So lets try this again. This roll was done in such a way that there was less stress placed on the AC then it would experience on a typical day flying through weather or that hard landing where you leave a trench 6 feet long and deep enough to plant crops in. I am not talking about flying inverted. I am not talking about making a mess out of the roll and either falling out of it and having to pull to hard to pull it back out, or going into positive Gs'. I am not talking about the legalities of this either. I can't, cause if you get caught doing this you have nothing in the CARS that will help you save your job. I am talking about the very nice roll the guys did on this video.

I thought I was dealing with some more experience pilots out here instead I find myself dealing with you people that seem to have a copy of the CARS in the bathroom. Obviously you are all too law abiding and sanctimonious that none of you have ever flown down low on an empty leg back home up north, or flown over gross to get that last bag in. I think this also qualifies for taking the AC outside of it’s certified flight envelope. Or gone bellow minimums on the last leg of the day to places such as YTH. Let alone have naked strumpets walking around the top of the wing. So good luck to all of you, and may I suggest you apply to work for Transport Canada enforcement so you can keep the world safe from dangerous ramp rats such as myself.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 8:45 am

Are we STILL going on about that 1900 doing a roll? Kind of enjoyed the video...but like JC, I'm pretty gentle with my Beech products.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:20 am

I'd far rather roll a naked strumpet on the wing than roll a B1900..

North of You · Post by **North of You** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:27 am

Both of which are outside of the ACs certified flight envelope.

just curious · Post by **just curious** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:27 am

Can't recall the last time I heard of a KA/1900 flying along when the wing just fell off...

That, and the Department of Transport Baron that went in, JUST as I was handing over my licence and logbook for an instructor rating, back when you didn't get a temporary slip for anything. Had me parked for 6 weeks.

Beech aircraft have had a high incidence of catastophic failures over the years. Operating them outside of their certfied limits is the height of folly.

The Tool · Post by **The Tool** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 12:56 pm

North of You...

I too agree that what was done (at least in Canada) is 1oo% a violation of the CARs... I am pleased we can agree on one point

Adherence to "CARs"/regulations is not the point. Adherence to the design limits of the aircraft is. Simply put...safety. Not only the safety of those flying the aircraft and in it during the flight but for those in it (for who knows how long) after.

You are 100% again

in that not everybody here is not a highly experienced pilot. I fall into that category. Only if you could count run-up time would I probably have close to the hours you have under your belt.

I am sure you have caught on now..but in case others haven't... I am an AME of numerous years experience.

I think I am going to close off my argument by stating I KNOW this is unsafe. I ask that all think twice before doing what was done or similar hijinxs. I am not going to convince all that it isn't. I seriously hope it doesn't end up hurting you or others, as it has in the past.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 1:48 pm

The problem is that the paper world and the real world are, at best, loosely coupled.

You can have an aircraft that is mechanically terrible with perfect paperwork.

You can have an aircraft that is mechanically superb with terrible paperwork problems.

Paper is very important to some people. But what is important to me is: Is The Metal Happy?

What I care about is whether or not the metal is cracking, corroding, abrading, etc.

Paperwork is nice, but I've heard a rumour that aircraft can't read.

TG · Post by TG » Sun Sep 03, 2006 11:06 am

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_an ... enDocument

The FAA received recent reports of cracks found in the wings of two RAC 1900D airplanes. During routine maintenance, the wing rear spar lower caps and rear spar web were found to have significant cracks.

The RAC Structural Inspection Manual requires a thorough inspection of the wing rear spar at 17,500 hours time-in-service (TIS) with repetitive inspections at intervals of 3,000 hours TIS.

One airplane had 19,126 hours TIS when cracks were found. The cracks were in the lower aft spar cap flange, but the cracks extended upward into the web and terminated at the lightening hole in the spar web. Fasteners were also found missing in the spar cap and wing cove splice plate. There were no discrepancies recorded from the initial inspection at 17,500 hours TIS on this airplane.

Early indications show similar cracking on the other airplane. We continue to gather information on this airplane.

Analysis shows that similar cracks could also develop in the wings of the Models 1900 and 1900C airplanes.

I still wonder about those B-1900 "practice rools" before the good one shown on the video.