The three bladed prop mod often seen on Beaver around these parts normally stops in fine pitch and is moved to coarse pitch by oil pressure. There is most certainly no way to feather a prop on a Beaver.
I believe that an operator on the mid Island got in trouble for installing a three blade prop off of a Goose or Beach on his beaver. I could be wrong but that prop would be able to feather. Right?
The three bladed prop mod often seen on Beaver around these parts normally stops in fine pitch and is moved to coarse pitch by oil pressure. There is most certainly no way to feather a prop on a Beaver.
I believe that an operator on the mid Island got in trouble for installing a three blade prop off of a Goose or Beach on his beaver. I could be wrong but that prop would be able to feather. Right?
The accident prop is not in 'feather'.
NEXT
---------- ADS -----------
The fastest way to turn money into smoke and noise..
Sorry I was unclear. I do not believe that accident one is. I think that that is bending the cause the engine was at high power when it contacted the water.
I was just saying that it may be possible to have a prop on a beaver feather.
Has anyone heard the off camera statement from an eye witness regarding the treeline not being cleared a loud pop a/c banking sharply to find itself in a nose down attitude? Any of you guy's out there that know the area and wind direction that could cause this direction of take-off? Any validity to this witness comment?
Here are the google earth coords of the Saturna ferry dock. The floatplane dock is at the end of the longer jetty just to the East of the dock..Saturna Ferry dock located at 48 deg 47min 53.40sec North, 123d 12m 05.21sec West. Take off zone in the channel to the North of that
---------- ADS -----------
Say, what's that mountain goat doing up here in the mist?
Happiness is V1 at Thompson!
Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.
Thanks north shore! I guess the question remains are these in your or any av canada poster's eye witness account/explanation seem plausable or succinct with the accident pics? Curious as to all opinions and thoughts...
As a Beaver floatplane passenger, flying with any operator, there are two things that bother me:
1) Given the importance of weight and balance, how can the pilot be sure of the load unless he weighs each passenger and their baggage?
2) Evacuating the Beaver requires exceptional cooperation from all the passengers. The rear seat passengers cannot exit unless the middle seat passengers are able to exit first.
We use standard weights for passengers based on season, sex and if they are children, as mandated by Transport Canada. If the seats are filled from the front first, logic puts the smallest in the back but so does comfort. You cannot load a Beav out of C of G if its full of passengers and the cargo area is not full of rocks.
Its true about evacuating a Beaver in sequence, but that's true for every aircraft - just think of the flight attendant standing in the aisle during a pre-take-off brief when she points to 6 exits in the Airbus you are riding in. You would have to wait for others to exit first depending upon where you sit in proximity to the exit. It would have to be a very small aircraft for each passenger to have his own exit!
---------- ADS -----------
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
I work for an operator who weigh's everything...something very new to me. Great practice in my opinion as compared to using the standard Transport weights. As we all know our southern neighbour's are never for the most part within transport's numbers. I also think that the beaver pax door lever should have been moded to the forward position of the door. I would always brief my right hand pax to reach over and open the left door and the reverse for the left hand side pax. In all honesty these pax were so big that even reaching over while the a/c was static proved to be a chore let alone in an egress situation. In my humble opinion...anyone else see this as being a problem with the rear door?
HS-748 2A wrote: The one blade which has been commented on appearing to be bent backwards is actually bent the same as the other one but has completely broken it's lock and is turned 180'
'48
Thanks '48. Being the one that commented on the optics generated from the photo of the prop, your explanation is a welcome insight to me of the mechanics that I was unaware of. It's a shame to have to learn new things at so great a cost.
"I was just saying that it may be possible to have a prop on a beaver feather."
Not for a prop that is certified to go on a Beaver. If it's on a Beaver operating out of YVR or YWH or YYJ or AX6 et al, it's a certified prop. A1 Propeller is just over the Strait; as is Transport.
Flogging a dead horse....
Agreed, NEXT.
"Is anyone familiar with the quick release door of the military Beaver? Or why it was removed for civilian config?"
I saw them being added back onto a Beaver being restored for a private owner who wanted it to be like a US military Beaver. The quick release door and mechanism where added (along with jettistonable wing stores!). They are essentially jettisonable doors that pull the hinge pins out allowing the doors to blow away in the slipstream followed by you jumping out with your parachute on.
I would guess those are reasons they weren't certified for the civilian Beavers.
"Has anyone heard the off camera statement from an eye witness regarding the treeline not being cleared a loud pop a/c banking sharply to find itself in a nose down attitude?"
Not a clue as to any off camera statements at all, or what take off was done during the accident flight. I will say, from experience, if you take off from Lyall Harbour and need to clear a tree line then you have just done a dangerous take off.
Flaps not set for take off? I know nothing about Beavers. But I do know they like flaps for take off. Any way flaps could have be set, and not deployed? That might account for more than one attempt at take off? Just tossing it out there. Very unlikely, I know.
"We use standard weights for passengers based on season, sex and if they are children, as mandated by Transport Canada. If the seats are filled from the front first, logic puts the smallest in the back but so does comfort. You cannot load a Beav out of C of G if its full of passengers and the cargo area is not full of rocks."
When we operated our Beech 18, all passengers, and any item to be flown on board the aircraft were weighed. Using standard weights in small aircraft is a great way to make over gross loads appear legal. Transport Canada does not mandate the use of standard weights, they allow it. However there is a disclaimer pertaining to standard weights that instructs pilots to use actual weights when the standard weights appear to be out of line. Unfortunately pilots/operators often conveniently overlook the fine print to make the load work on paper.
I have seen a few operators, and a few oil companies mandate that actual weights are to be used on all occasions. To those who do this - I commend you. This is the most responsible option, and is really not that difficult to comply with.
Standard weights are great on large aircraft where the laws of averages even out the load and reflect fairly accurately the overall passenger weight. In comparison, small aircraft very often are over gross in passenger weights - and that is before baggage/cargo is added. Using actual weights, the above quoted statement would be false if all on board were heavier than standard - gross weight and c of g could easily be an issue in any small aircraft.
IMHO of course.
Cheers,
Kirsten B.
---------- ADS -----------
“Never interrupt someone doing something you said couldn’t be done.” Amelia Earhart
"When we operated our Beech 18, all passengers, and any item to be flown on board the aircraft were weighed. Using standard weights in small aircraft is a great way to make over gross loads appear legal. Transport Canada does not mandate the use of standard weights, they allow it. However there is a disclaimer pertaining to standard weights that instructs pilots to use actual weights when the standard weights appear to be out of line. Unfortunately pilots/operators often conveniently overlook the fine print to make the load work on paper."
Of course the company's Ops Manual defines what should be used, and what should be done if the passengers are bigger looking than average.
On this flight it would appear from photographs that the passengers all looked to be about the average weight.
Doc posted a comment about perhaps no flaps being used. A Beaver will never get in the air without flaps, with the possible exception of no passengers and about a mile and a half take off slide. So that's most certainly not the case here. But flaps blowing up due to a catastrophic leak in the hydraulic system would cause a rapid sink. Unlikely, besides it looks like flaps where de[ployed on the recovered plane, looking at the left wing.
viccoastdog wrote:
Doc posted a comment about perhaps no flaps being used. A Beaver will never get in the air without flaps, with the possible exception of no passengers and about a mile and a half take off slide. So that's most certainly not the case here. But flaps blowing up due to a catastrophic leak in the hydraulic system would cause a rapid sink. Unlikely, besides it looks like flaps where de[ployed on the recovered plane, looking at the left wing.
I believe Northwest Flying in Nestor Falls, ON has an STC for a rear door release in a Beaver. The Ontario Gov't are in the process of modifying all their Turbo Beavers to this system.
---------- ADS -----------
You Can Love An Airplane All You Want, But Remember, It Will Never Love You Back!
