Why Transport doesn't like externals

[shannon]

Interesting the date and time that the last two posters joined the forum.

[185_guy]

Interesting the date and time that the last two posters joined the forum.
Interesting the date and time that the last two posters joined the forum.

Probably because they have a lot of bigger fish to fry (aka. a life!!) than playing on the internet, until someone seemingly bashes them or someone they know.

[Bushav8er]

I wasn't going to jump on this topic again but for those young guys/gals out there...

What has been done in the past does not make an action legal. Having a section in your Ops Man. isn't an 'approval' to do something, it merely spells out the 'how'. You have to check the CARs, OC and Type Certificates for approvals. Sure it may be dumb to say that a piece of paper is what makes things right but that's the world we live in...if you aren't operating legally and something happens it could mean no C.of A., therefore no insurance and its your neck as PIC.

bushhog, you don't quite get the exemption.

It covers two items:
1) carrying external loads with passengers and,
2) STC'd aircraft

In simple terms it means that if you follow the procedures spelled out, you can carry loads with passengers on an aircraft like a C180 that doesn't have a rack and if you are flying an aircraft covered by an STC (or TC if original equipment) you must follow the conditions of the STC/TC, which in many cases doesn't include anything more then lumber and boats/canoes. The Norseman falls into this category.

In the pics I don't see the boat racks installed. The tank is tied to the struts which is very different than having the rack attached. The rack is a hard physical structure that transfer loads in both directions, a rope does not and adds load to the strut.

Not having the racks installed is probably better because if the TC calls them 'equipment' and its not installed you could probably do the 'test flight' requirement and be ok but if they are installed you have to follow the TC, I still wouldn't tie to the struts though.

And yes, I too have flown 'strange' loads and have thousands of hours on floats. I'm not saying external loads shouldn't be carried, merely that people understand the 'rules' and how it may effect you.

Fly Safe...and legal, at least understand what you are doing because ignorance isn't a defense when TC is on the dock.

[Osiris]

All the pics posted so far are just a "day in the life" of a bushpilot as far as I remember. I certainly haven't seen anything posted out of the ordinary yet.

What!! You call that horrible van-art aft of the tank ordinary?

[wabano]

One thing enforced is that you WILL NOT tie anything to the Otter's wing struts.

Especially if you DONT have the 9,000 pounds gross STC, they are
aluminium and paper thin, unlike the Norseman, which are thick and made of steel...


I remember about 20 years ago, in Rouyn, or maybe Val d'Or, I came in on a new job to go up north,
waiting in the lobby for the interview, I observed out the bay window the pilot of a beaver on skis
removing both cargo doors...then proceeding to load 2X4X8 sticks SIDEWAY and fully filling the opening tight...

He jumped in and taxied out...I fully expected him to crash on take off right there and then...
but no, he flew away as if nothing was special!(He had left half flaps down)

And I guess that's what kept the negative lift on the stab...had he stalled it,
he would have suddenly dove straight down vertically and ripped the wings off...
He was in what's called the coffin corner...a bit slower or faster, and it's game over!

That pilot made it on that trip...but the following month, he crashed in a snowstorm at late dusk...
He had to spend the night with an oil drum sitting on his lap. When he was rescued,
he took his wallet out and ripped his pilot license in little pieces, swearing he would never
get in an airplane!

I hope he kept his promise!

[Walterdriver]

I think this is ridicules! external loads on a N-6 to a 185 going down that had 1 passengers no freight and no external load. I think some one is mad cuz they could never figure out how to fly a plane and now all they have to do is sit on the computer and try to make them self feel better buy trying to knock others. Nothing about those pic's are out of the ordinary. Even I can tell that picture is x-wind and not down wind from just a quick glance. I have done a bit of time in the N-6 with externals and that second pic would be a nice load to haul... and the ropes on the wing struts are just simply a place to tie up the loose ends of the rope, they are tied snug to stop them from flapping around in the wind... I would like to say that if you as a human can pull a rope tight enough on a wing strut that it would make that plane unsafe to fly I would never get in any plane for the wrest of my life... do you know how much pressure an approved boat rack with a boat tied to it on the (one) wing strut that it's bolted to on the N-6 is? I know it's more pressure then you can pull on the rope. But it seems you might have a lot practice at that. The Good Old days would still be here if every one didn't bend over when told to take it!

[chesty]

N-6, now that's one I hadn't heard before. cool!

[NWONT]

I have hauled so many 14 ft boats on 180's and 185's I couldn't possibly remember them, sometimes five or six a day. Sixteen footers were hauled on the Beaver. The early moose hunt would start above the 11th base line and as it progressed south the tent camps would be moved along with the boats. If anyone had anything they wanted moved we would do everything possible to figure out how to tie it to the plane or for very long lumber or steel trusses we would herc strap it to the floats. On a rare occassion a herc strap would be tangled up in the waterrudders when we landed. I once hauled a five hundred gallon fuel tank, just like the one on the Norseman,on an old Beaver without rudder trim. It took both feet on one rudder pedal to keep it staight in the air. We discovered, thru trial and error, that a fifteen cubic ft deep freeze could be hauled if you put it across a Norseman and let the doors rest against it but if you did this with a 20 cubic footer, the doors were opened too wide and covered up too much of the tail feathers, so we drew the line at 15 cubic footers. Now, with all this being said and all the unauthorized freight that have been attached to aircraft, I don't ever remember and accident caused by external loads. Do any of you know of such an accident?

[NWONT]

While I'm beaking off on this subject, I know the guys who have been flying C-FKAS for the last ten years or more. You would be hard pressed to find more experienced or highly skilled Norseman pilots anywhere in the world. Even the late, great, Donny( the Duck ) Graham had his mitts on the pole for a spell before he took his career to a higher altitude. I'm sure he must be the most high time Norseman pilot ever. When these boys decide to tie something on a Norseman they know exactly how the machine and the load will respond in the air. I can just hear Donny's cackle echoing in Howie Bay if he read this thread.

[CLguy]

NWONT stated:

I don't ever remember and accident caused by external loads.

When this thread began I started thinking about that very thing. In over 30 years in commercial aviation I also cannot think of a single accident that involved an external load. I also like to think I have seen pretty much everything hung on the side of an aircraft or under it at one time or another. Makes one wonder what the hell all the sqawking is about!!!

[lost in the north]

Dawn Air,or Norcanair,can not remember which out of La Ronge had one come off the otter.Hit the tale and the pilot had no elevator control,landed it by useing the trim

[Bushav8er]

Unfortunately, accidents and incidents continue to occur with airplanes carrying external loads. In October 2003, a fatal loss-of-control accident involving a Piper PA-18-150 occurred while carrying moose antlers attached to the aircraft floats. The Transportation Safety Board report (TSB Report A03W0210) for the PA-18-150 accident cites more than 17 accidents that have occurred since 1976, involving external load operations with airplanes. Nine of these accidents involved fatalities.

Source: http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/publi ... enance.htm

I remember one. I don't recall all the details off hand, DHC-2 and bed frames (steel spring type), got airborne but so much drag created by the load he had a very difficult time getting safely back down under control.

My position has always been that this stuff has been going on for 70+ years, it will continue (I hope) but 1) play the (TC) game; whats been done in the past does not justify it by default now, follow the rules and 2) know what you are doing and how to do it - wabano's example is a perfect one for how NOT to carry a load (especially stupid since that size lumber would fit inside)

Again, fly safe...and smart.

[The Old Fogducker]

I always wonder at posts that contain ... "Well, I've never heard of it...."

Trust me, not even the combined knowledge of every single poster on AvCanada since its inception would be sufficient to make the kind of statement which would have someone believe they've seen it all heard it all, and done it all.

[Driving Rain]

NWONT stated:

I don't ever remember and accident caused by external loads.

When this thread began I started thinking about that very thing. In over 30 years in commercial aviation I also cannot think of a single accident that involved an external load. I also like to think I have seen pretty much everything hung on the side of an aircraft or under it at one time or another. Makes one wonder what the hell all the sqawking is about!!!

I witnessed one on Sand Bay just a little before your time in the Fort. An American registered 185 took off from the Rendezvous after clearing customs. They had a "fold-a-boat" strapped to the side. The only trouble was it was positioned too far forward and not secured to the left float bow cleat with a line. The contraption bent outward on take off to such a large extent that the 185 went out of control about 400 feet in the climb, banking steeply left and plowed into Rainy killing both occupants. The pilot was a NW Orient 747 driver. I know they were perhaps not as experienced as the regular bush guys and that had something to do with it.
Years latter I was flying a beaver out of Baker Lake/Chantry Inlet Nunivuit. The camp at Chantry had "fold-a-boats". Remembering the two unlucky Yanks from years before when I flew my first "fold-a-boat" I made darn sure the thing wouldn't flop outwards.

[NWONT]

Well Fogducker, thats why I posed it as a question and not a statement. I've never heard of it, have you???? There are a thousand stories about a thousand arsetighteners that never got beyond the dock that they happened on. Many of these stories have been retold at the local bar so many times and embellished, that they are now far from the truth. I've been told that during the gold rush, Red Lake, Ont was the busiest aerodrome in the world, more aircraft movements than New York City or LA, I can't prove it but I heard it. I got a feeling Driving Rain might have the facts on this. Over many years, Red Lake has been a bit of an epicenter for bush flying. Everything was hauled to drilling sites on aircraft and its still going on today. Everybody was too busy working and rushing to stake claims to record aircraft mishaps and there were many. The picture of C-FKAS would not have raised an eyebrow. If it wasn't for that sense of adventure to achieve something new or haul something bigger, the Wright Brothers would have stuck to building bicycles.

[185_guy]

N-6, now that's one I hadn't heard before. cool!

The aircraft designator for the Norseman is N6. Why it is a 6 is beyond me, maybe because there were more mark 6's built or perhaps they were the first mark of norseman built in great numbers?
But the Mark 6 (VI) was built before the mark V (5) so the V could be used after V day of the war.
Great old birds nonetheless with lots of history made to go along with them.

[Driving Rain]

NWONT

I've been told that during the gold rush, Red Lake, Ont was the busiest aerodrome in the world, more aircraft movements than New York City or LA, I can't prove it but I heard it. I got a feeling Driving Rain might have the facts on this.

Your close Ray it was Hudson believe it or not, but don't take my word for it.
http://www.visitredlakeregion.com/artic ... re-239.asp

[NWONT]

The way I read it, it says Red Lake, Goldpines and Hudson were the busiest in the world. For those unfamiliar, Goldpines is in the vicinity of Ear Falls.

[The Old Fogducker]

Well Fogducker, thats why I posed it as a question and not a statement. I've never heard of it, have you???? .

Northwest ... didn't mean to sound like a junkyard guard dog, but one of the guys I worked with 2 years ago used that phrase almost daily, holding it up in a "If I haven't heard of it, its darned unlikely to have ever happened, and its total bull roar" sort of way. He was a self-appointed expert on every aspect of aviation .... operating anything from a hang-glider to the Space Shuttle, dating from the Wright Brothers through . Yeager's flight testing career, and Richard Branson's newest space ship.

My external load flying on the Cessnas & Beavers was limited to pretty conventional stuff, except for my days on the Single Swine .... some sections of railroad track being flown into a diamond drilling site ... 4 lengths, 2 per float. Flew just fine.

Most awkward was a 20 ft Lund, plus a good hefty load inside ... absolute ceiling at METO power was about 2,500 ft asl. It was a bumpy day, and I was taking advantage of every thermal I flew through, and cursing every downdraft.

OFD

[CLguy]

The day I saw a dead guy in a body bag strapped to the float of a 180 was the day I realized I had probably seen it all!!!

[cdnpilot77]

[quote="bushhog"]Nor does he understand the exsemption for the carrage of external loads. I see 6 independant fasteners on this tank,twice as many as required.and i'm sure this type of tank was test flown by the cheif pilot,and is on file.quote]

Sorry I am late on this one...

Didn't transport change the rules and no longer have any exemtions? My understanding is that as of last winter, the only thing allowed to fly on an approved "boat rack" without an STC was a canoe up to 14' I believe. I may be off on this, but I seem to recall at a TC seminar they told us that because the exemptions werent being used...people were using them but not filing the proper paperwork...they were doing away with it. Every EL then needed to have a proving flight from that point forward unless a proving flight had been done and could be properly documented. Operators could sell rights to a STC I believe if they carried out their own proving flight, but all PF's needed to involve a TC rep. The tank in the first picture was tested on a proving flight...I have seen the paperwork. However, it was also done while the exemption still existed.

As for fasteners...At WCA, we were always told that 3 was not enough for anything. The basic tie in was always 3, but min 4 and as many as 6 were used. You use as many as it takes to secure it properly, they didnt fool around with that stuff...if it fluttered or moved or was not in the perfect spot at all, the load came off the strut or rack and you started again.

It is very upsetting that people people post things about certain companies without ever having worked for them and seeing exactly how they operate. Although some pople may have issues with this company, they are safe.
The 185 incident...well that had nothing to do with management, I have a bit of inside info on this and it was a pilot that made a costly mistake coupled with a malfunction. Simple as that. Its too bad too cus that 185 sure looked nice in her new paint and interior.

[cdnpilot77]

FYI further to my previous point:

Advisory Circular (AC)
No. 500-004
File No.: 5009-32-4 U Issue No: 01
RDIMS No.: 4535611 V1
Effective Date: 2009-02-17

Assessing the Effect of Carrying External Loads on Aircraft

6.0 PAST DESIGN APPROVALS
1.STCs have been issued for a number of boat and canoe racks, particularly for the DHC-2 Beaver and DHC-3 Otter aeroplanes. The status of these approvals has not changed; they remain valid. A number of Canadian-registered aircraft have been granted Limited Supplemental Type Certificates (LSTC), or one-off type design change approvals, for the carriage of external loads; these approvals also remain valid.
2.Additional LSTCs for aircraft previously cleared for the carriage of external loads may be possible without further TCCA flight tests if:
a.the proposal is structurally acceptable; and
b.the applicant submits an appropriate flight test report, and flight or operating manual supplement in accordance with this AC.
3.TCCA flight testing may be required if one or more of the limitations noted in sub-section 5.7 of this AC are not adhered to.
4.For more information concerning previous design approvals for the carriage of external loads that may apply to their aircraft, operators should contact their respective TCCA regional office. Operators may also refer to the TCCA web site at the following address to search for design approvals applicable to their aircraft. http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/applications/nico-celn/

[Cat Driver]

You mean all those years I carried all sorts of stuff on the outside of airplanes I would have been safer if I had consulted the experts at TC?

[cdnpilot77]

You mean all those years I carried all sorts of stuff on the outside of airplanes I would have been safer if I had consulted the experts at TC?

Haha, of course CAT...a piece of paper definately makes flying boats on the side of an airplane safer! How could we not see this before? They said in the seminar "it cost us too much time and effort to administer a program that few were using properly by sending their exemption paperwork". I think it gave them an excuse to hire some more people to go for ride alongs, get more funding to do so from the feds and charge higher fees down the road.

[CD]

Looks like the exemption is still in place...

Exemption from 605.03(1)(b) and 703.25

Issue Date: 7/3/2009
Expiry Date: 12/31/2010
Purpose: The purpose of this exemption is to allow Canadian air operators to carry external loads on their float equipped aeroplanes without an authorization in the type certificate or in a supplemental type certificate and without complying with the conditions of the aeroplane flight authority with respect to the approval of the carriage of external loads.

Link to exemption here...