Forum interest lagging ...

[200hr Wonder]

Interesting tilt to this thread.

As a current 703 pilot I see a few changes in my mind that would improve safety immensely that just don’t get done or even considered it seems:

Hardware:
• Why is anyone flying around these days with out a certified TSOd GPS boggles my mind. These Northern operators who had to spend money on TCAS systems and no certified GPS? I honestly do not enjoy flying IFR without a certified GPS. There are vastly more approach options and you eliminate higher risk activates with them. For example not having to circle and not requiring a procedure turn. All activities with higher risk factors than doing a standard T approach.

• Old aircraft. The time may have come to turn many of these aircraft into tin cans. I see nothing wrong taking a hard look at accidents over the past number of years and requiring old aircraft to meet new standards. How many could have had better outcomes if a more modern aircraft of the same size had been used? For example the number of King Air 100 losses as discussed in the NT Accident thread? Would the 200 with its extra power have saved some lives? This is something that should be looked at. People will decry how can you de-certify a plane. The fact of the matter is something better has come along and it is time to move forward with the new technology. If an old model can meet current standards so be it, or perhaps it is time to scrap it, or modify it.

Wetware:

• Lack of proper training. How many of you 703/704 types do your annual PPC after the minimum training per the book, manage to pass, wipe your brow and say fewh good for another 12 months and then don’t do any training for 11 months till it is time for your PPC next year? I am sure there is a vast majority. This is a time when you are learning at a fast pace, and doing perhaps the most challenging flying you will ever do with the least amount of training and feed back. What is wrong with requiring full sim training for new PPCs on type, followed by a quarterly PCC followed by Semi-annual PPC before you go on to rolling annual PPCs with sim time? It would be nice if we all got way more training but operators are at this level going to do as little as mandated. It is the sad truth of aviation. The solution unfortunately is to mandate more training. Stricter standards and keep the 200 hours wonders who are along for the ride out of the soup until they are ready. The operators have proven they are not going to take a new co-jo with a fresh IFR or perhaps an IFR instructor who has never seen the inside of a cloud and mentor them and slowly introduce them by perhaps starting out day-vfr only, then night, then higher cloud base before having them go down to mins. It would mean more staff and not be convenient. How many of us have flown with the guy who the other pilots don’t trust the skills or decision making because hey he squeaked by his PPC the boss spent X dollars training and now off to fly the line he goes? Leaving his Captain stuck with an extra passenger and a higher workload essentially. Lord knows I was the extra passenger at one point in my career and was lucky enough to fly with great skilled captains who brought me along and helped me get better. I am sure however there where many an ugly night where he wished I know way more than I did.


I really think what needs to be done with the small operators to make them safer is embrace new technology, provide better ongoing training and level the playing field. If everyone needs to do it and it costs more the end result will be prices will rise. The fact is most flying in these types of operations is necessity not convenience. If the cost of doing business goes up and the prices have to go up as well then people will pay it.

[Prairie Chicken]

Glad to hear you're still here, Cat, and as observant as always.

[Doc]

Interesting tilt to this thread.

As a current 703 pilot I see a few changes in my mind that would improve safety immensely that just don’t get done or even considered it seems:

Hardware:
• Why is anyone flying around these days with out a certified TSOd GPS boggles my mind. These Northern operators who had to spend money on TCAS systems and no certified GPS? I honestly do not enjoy flying IFR without a certified GPS. There are vastly more approach options and you eliminate higher risk activates with them. For example not having to circle and not requiring a procedure turn. All activities with higher risk factors than doing a standard T approach.

• Old aircraft. The time may have come to turn many of these aircraft into tin cans. I see nothing wrong taking a hard look at accidents over the past number of years and requiring old aircraft to meet new standards. How many could have had better outcomes if a more modern aircraft of the same size had been used? For example the number of King Air 100 losses as discussed in the NT Accident thread? Would the 200 with its extra power have saved some lives? This is something that should be looked at. People will decry how can you de-certify a plane. The fact of the matter is something better has come along and it is time to move forward with the new technology. If an old model can meet current standards so be it, or perhaps it is time to scrap it, or modify it.

Wetware:

• Lack of proper training. How many of you 703/704 types do your annual PPC after the minimum training per the book, manage to pass, wipe your brow and say fewh good for another 12 months and then don’t do any training for 11 months till it is time for your PPC next year? I am sure there is a vast majority. This is a time when you are learning at a fast pace, and doing perhaps the most challenging flying you will ever do with the least amount of training and feed back. What is wrong with requiring full sim training for new PPCs on type, followed by a quarterly PCC followed by Semi-annual PPC before you go on to rolling annual PPCs with sim time? It would be nice if we all got way more training but operators are at this level going to do as little as mandated. It is the sad truth of aviation. The solution unfortunately is to mandate more training. Stricter standards and keep the 200 hours wonders who are along for the ride out of the soup until they are ready. The operators have proven they are not going to take a new co-jo with a fresh IFR or perhaps an IFR instructor who has never seen the inside of a cloud and mentor them and slowly introduce them by perhaps starting out day-vfr only, then night, then higher cloud base before having them go down to mins. It would mean more staff and not be convenient. How many of us have flown with the guy who the other pilots don’t trust the skills or decision making because hey he squeaked by his PPC the boss spent X dollars training and now off to fly the line he goes? Leaving his Captain stuck with an extra passenger and a higher workload essentially. Lord knows I was the extra passenger at one point in my career and was lucky enough to fly with great skilled captains who brought me along and helped me get better. I am sure however there where many an ugly night where he wished I know way more than I did.


I really think what needs to be done with the small operators to make them safer is embrace new technology, provide better ongoing training and level the playing field. If everyone needs to do it and it costs more the end result will be prices will rise. The fact is most flying in these types of operations is necessity not convenience. If the cost of doing business goes up and the prices have to go up as well then people will pay it.

So in short, you think all the problems will go away if we throw more money into the fray? Because all your solutions cost a Hell of a lot of money. Do you really THINK a Beech 200 is safer than a 100? You must consider DC3's and the like, virtual death traps! I don't think money is the answer, common sense is. That, and training. How modern an airplane would prevent a pilot from pushing weather? Perhaps something new and shiny? How will a 200 prevent a pilot from descending below limits and contacting the ground in a CFIT accident? Obviously the 100 ain't doing the trick. Will a TSO'd GPS prevent a pilot from departing with insufficient fuel in his tanks? Doubt it. The problem is NOT the age of the airplanes, or how much money the airline has to spend on avionics. It's the mind set of the average pilot.

[Cat Driver]

Glad to hear you're still here, Cat, and as observant as always.

Thanks, a year ago I was in deep shock and I can't ever remember much about what I did or how I managed to even survive. But as time passes the empty feeling slowly gets better and I am going to do the best I can to live whatever time is left for me.

I am back to work part time and it helps a lot keeping busy, I have flown over seventy hours on the company airplane since June of this year and it was probably the best thing I could have done. Flying for me has always been easier than walking so that makes things doable. After a few days back flying it felt as if I had never taken time off....I guess that is what over 30,000 hours does for one.

The really big, big event for me will be when we get a company Jetranger and I get to fly that as a personal toy under the guise of it being a company aircraft.

It is difficult for me to try and advise people on how to fly safely as I frequently just end up frustrated and discouraged because I just can't seem to ignore the more aggressive posters probably because I am just not wired to take crap from anyone....but there are a lot of good people here so I hang around hoping to occasionally help someone out.

. E.

[Rowdy]

Glad to see you back .! I too am slowly fading.. I find there to be far too much drivel and excessive amounts of anonymous know it alls.. the camraderie and higher spirit and joking around that was on here when I joined way back in the day is lacking.

A lot of great people have simply moved on..

[Big Pistons Forever]

I guess it all depends on what your motives for posting are. I, as a fairly high time getting a bit long in the tooth, pilot; post for the same reason as I am guessing most of my peers do. It is a way to give back to aviation. I look back at all the help I got from wiser more experienced pilots and want to in some limited way pay it forward. The stuff I post is put out there to give folks things to think about. Agree, disagree, don't want to know, whatever, I care not, because there are few black and white "right" vs "wrong" ways to do things so I am not personally offended if someone does not agree with something I have posted.

Finally for every one who regularly post there are 10 who lurk on the boards, many are low timers looking for insights. I would not underestimate the power of Avcanada as a positive force to make aviation better. I bet there are a significant number of 703/704 guys who are rethinking when to declare an emergency after reading the NT Air crash thread........

The "dross" factor on the board is like late/inconsiderate passengers in a charter/corporate gig. It is can be aggravating as hell but it is a fact of life and nothing you can do will change the situation. The fundamental nature of an anonymous bulletin board means 50 percent of the posts will be a waste of time, but on balance, for me at least there are enough "nuggets" of industry news and thought provoking discussions that make it worth coming back. I also think those pining for the "old" Avcanada may have put on the old rose colored Raybans. What I remember of the old time were many threads with vicious personal attacks, demonic rages, and aggressive bullying. I do miss Hedley though. He was always pulling to the buffet, but he sure had a lot of great experience to share. I would like to see him invited back with maybe a suggestion to only pull positive Gee's and stay away from those 8 negative Gee rants

[200hr Wonder]

So in short, you think all the problems will go away if we throw more money into the fray? Because all your solutions cost a Hell of a lot of money. Do you really THINK a Beech 200 is safer than a 100? You must consider DC3's and the like, virtual death traps! I don't think money is the answer, common sense is. That, and training. How modern an airplane would prevent a pilot from pushing weather? Perhaps something new and shiny? How will a 200 prevent a pilot from descending below limits and contacting the ground in a CFIT accident? Obviously the 100 ain't doing the trick. Will a TSO'd GPS prevent a pilot from departing with insufficient fuel in his tanks? Doubt it. The problem is NOT the age of the airplanes, or how much money the airline has to spend on avionics. It's the mind set of the average pilot.

Doc first off yes I will answer your question with a question.... Would you not say that an aircraft with better single engine performance vs a similar airplane is safer in an engine out situation? Therefore I will stand by my point that a 200 is a safer airplane than an A100. I also never said that old airplanes are inherently unsafe I said that there is newer aircraft that are safer. Re the DC3 I once met a guy when asked how much DC3 time did he have he said 1000hours... On one engine. I think if you took the time to read my entire post you would note that training was as big a part as good equipment. Then again heaven forbid if someone where to not share the same opinion as the great Doc, they must therefore be wrong. For what it is worth 703/704 operators seem to be the only industry I know where a company that is going to be successful in the long run does not have a capital replacement plan in place. Even one truck O/O in hauling have a replacement plan in place to upgrade outdated equipment. Why not 703/704 operators?

[Nark]

This is what you make of it.

If you are man (or woman) enough to step back an learn, by golly, it can be done here.

If you want to be a big man and hide behind a username and call people out, well golly-gee you can do that here.

If you want to use this as a tool to meet other like minded individuals in this industry, that can be done too.

You get out of it what you want.

[Cat Driver]

Re the DC3 I once met a guy when asked how much DC3 time did he have he said 1000hours... On one engine.

That was someone just joking.

The DC3 is one of the most reliable aircraft ever made and the P&W 1830 is one of the most reliable engines you could want, considering they are piston engines.

Just thought I would point that out because some people would actually believe that the DC3 was that unreliable.

[200hr Wonder]

Cat don't get me wrong I am not saying that the DC3 is unsafe or unreliable even, just that times have moved on and there are options that are far superior to the 1830. The Basler conversion is a good example. PT6 Engines have an MTBF of .01/1000 or less established over 100,000 hours in service. A reliable airframe brought up to modern standards.

And I am well aware that the comment was in jest with regards to single engine DC3 time.

[Cat Driver]

Of course I understood you knew all that and I agree that modern turbine engines are far more reliable.

I just wanted to clear it up for the newbies.

[iflyforpie]

The thing is, how many twin-engined aircraft are brought down by engine failure? Not too many in comparison to those brought down by other causes. Weather, illusions, human factors, running out of gas... all things that can destroy the most modern and best equipped aircraft.

IMHO, the type and age of the aircraft is the smallest factor in aviation safety (with proper servicing and maintenance). The most important ones are flight crew skill and training (hands and feet, CRM, SOPs), and Pilot Decision Making.

I have no idea what happened to that NT 100 aircraft. But lets explore it. If it was a 200, maybe it might have been able to go around, maybe it might have made it to the runway, maybe it might have crashed on the runway. But maybe it might have wound up in the same spot because there was nothing that could have been done in time to save it.

Now, lets look at pilot skill. Maybe pilot skill wouldn't have made a difference. Maybe carrying a bit of extra speed and altitude in light of the long runway might have been a better thing. Maybe pilot skill might have anticipated the difficulty they encountered.

Now, PDM. Why YVR and not YXX with its large runways and crash equipment? (It does support scheduled passenger service). Why not declare an emergency and get equipment? Why not request a block altitude and direct routing so you can stay high or expedite (I'm not sure if they followed arrival or just booked it back).


Now, I know SFA about turbine IFR flying, but I see a similar vein in Mountain VFR flying. People ask me, 'What kind of plane do I need to fly in the mountains?' 'How much horsepower should I have?', 'What kind of STOL kit is the best?', 'Do you have to have a GPS with terrain?'. I tell them that any aircraft and equipment is fine in the mountains as long as you respect its limitations and yours, and don't depend on an aircraft's specific capabilities to get you where you are going. They are to get you out of trouble, not into it.

[Doc]

"SOP's were developed, so two stupid pilots could function together as a team. With SOP's one stupid pilot would know what the other stupid pilot would do, and when....." There is wisdom in that statement. Whether we agree with it or not.....it makes some sense....