DC-3 "Crash" Yellowknife

[EA757]

Eric Janson,

About 36 years ago --- in Canada.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/rec ... 19770228-3

[pelmet]

Most are poorly maintained at best (not pointing fingers, general comment)

Please show us examples of how the DC-3's flying these days are poorly maintained. If you don't have direct evidence to show us, then at least tell us where you have discovered that most DC-3's are poorly maintained at best.

So, you want me to name names? On a public forum? Give your head a shake.
Buffalo has pretty good maintenance, from what I know. They're too "high profile" not to.
2+2=4 Please show your work.

Actually, you said in the present tense that most DC-3's are poorly maintained. Who else out there is there but Buffalo and CWH with their beautiful machine?

Then you say to someone to give their head a shake when they ask you to name the companies with poor maintenance but I suspect you don't have any evidence.

I certainly hope their good old DC-3 flies again. This is actually a unique experience as there are no other DC-3's operating sched flights in North America. Alternative aircraft types are available if one desires.

[godsrcrazy]

Doc: according to your summary, the DC-3 appears
to be getting safer with each passing year

God, I love statistics. The whore of mathematics.

Maybe thats because most of them are now in museums. You ever heard the saying we are having a Safety Meeting nobody moves then nobody gets hurt.

Doc i see you missed the Buffalo crash in Fort Simpson years ago (C-FROD). Although this aircraft crashed short of the runway due to no fuel left in the tank.

[Siddley Hawker]

Right prop "appears" feathered, but running at impact, yes?

Kind of looks that way don't it. In keeping with the "If my aunt had balls she be my uncle" theme, If the rh prop didn't immediately feather for whatever reason, he'd have a handful until the gear came up, and even then, as we say down here "Ca sera pas un hostie de cadeau."

[GA MX Trainer Dude]

Doc

Database is missing the Air North accident on 19 August 1995, when Douglas C-47B C-GZOF crashed on approach to Vancouver International Airport, Richmond, British Columbia killing one of the three crew.

Cause was runaway propeller and flight crew returning to airport with a turn into the windmilling engine IIRC.


The outcome on this one was not nearly as good as what happened to WIR!!!

On any multi-engine aircraft if the prop doesn't feather you have a serious issue. Can't speculate on this one because don't know what happened on the flight and what actions the flight crew did. Until we know that the best we can do is a "WAG" - (Wild A$$ Guess).

As to the maintenance issue - all I can comment on is that the remaining so called remaining museum pieces have more tender loving care lavished on them now than what they did when they were tramp freighters in the 70s. I know for sure that some companies in the past have had less than stellar maintenance practices but I would doubt that is the case here. Buffalo is a very visible target to not provide good maintenance - not that they can't make mistakes just like the flight crews.

It is true that the DC-3 would never get modern certification status as a new design - but that is a sign of the the progress that we have made in the field of aircraft design and engineering. Maybe it is time for the old girls to be retired - but as long as they still have certified status - then the powers that be have decided they are "Safe Enough". Maybe that isn't good enough for some of you - as for me - some recently certified aircraft would have me questioning as to whether I would want to put my "Bum on a Seat". As for the DC-3 - I'd go for a ride any day with the right company, the right aircraft, and the right drivers.



Regards,

Mx

Edit for typo

[jeta1]

Of course Buffalo Joe would say "nobody got shook-up"... Right....

[Siddley Hawker]

Database is missing the Air North accident on 19 August 1995, when Douglas C-47B C-GZOF crashed on approach to Vancouver International Airport, Richmond, British Columbia killing one of the three crew.

Unless I missed it I didn't see Austin's AAC in there either, at Val D'Or in 1970. That was also an engine failure/fire right after takeoff, with some fatalities.

It is true that the DC-3 would never get modern certification status as a new design ..

Yep. Would the Beaver be certifiable under today's regs with no stall warning?

[Clodhopper]

http://aviation-safety.net/database/rec ... 19770512-0

Another DC-3 with an engine fire during the takeoff roll...Difficulty climbing, elected to turn back towards the airport, ended up ditching in the lake instead.

[frozen solid]

Not that I necessarily agree or disagree with retiring the piston-engined DC3s, but when we're talking about the many accidents they appear to have had over the years, let's be careful not to include in our statistical analysis the ones that have collided with NDB towers, and flown into the ice in whiteout conditions, run out of gas, or collided with terrain. These accidents have little to do with what type of aircraft was involved. Also, there will of course be lots of DC3 accidents from those years where it was simply the most common aircraft out there.

I can sympathise with Doc's position though. Please don't start fighting after I type this, but having no time on DC3s, Doc's remarks make me think instead of the ol' DHC-2, on which I have lots of experience. I love the machine, but after having flown almost every other DeHavilland type, with TURBINES, the rare occasion I get back into a steam beaver reminds me of how antiquated it really is. The comparison in performance between the piston engine version and the Mk3, or the twin, or the turbine-converted -3, is startling.

[CID]

I have 3400 hours on the DC-3 - all with Buffalo.

The aircraft were well looked after when I worked there - only had 1 failure/shutdown in 7 years.

Just to satisfy my curiosity - when was the last DC-3 crash with passenger fatalities in Canada?

Sounds like you had a good experience. It's probably been quite a while since a fatality occurred in Canada on one. I know several pilots who were killed in them. Mostly freight operations, and many years ago. Actually, for the number of DC3's flying, even back then, vs. the number of fatalities, the DC3 did not have an enviable record. I can think of, off the cuff of 5 fatals. Out of a fleet of well under 50-60 aircraft, that's pretty crappy. Buffalo is a pretty unique beast, in that, who else flies them on sked service in Canada today? There were recently a couple flying for lodges. One in MB, but I don't think they do that anymore. They were using a 580 last time I checked.
Like you Eric, I really enjoyed flying them. Not so much the rest of the "song and dance" that wen with it.
C'Mon guys, it's time to retire the old girl.

Busted and back-pedalling again.....

[Doc]

I came up with some my post didn't cover as well. All in all, not a very enviable total.

[azimuthaviation]

I see even Air France is listed.

Why shouldn't they be? They have the worst record of any top tier airline n the developed world, and going right up to the present day. Correct me if Im wrong but in the last 10 years there have been three hull loss incidents among the largest western airlines and two have been on AF including the only incident with fatalities.

[pelmet]

Would the Beaver be certifiable under today's regs with no stall warning?

An artificial stall warning is not necessary for certification if natural buffet characteristics are sufficient.

[Adiabatic]

I can't remember myself if the performance charts in the DC-3 manual are for engines running 100LL or 100/130.
I would assume that when they converted over to avgas this would have been a major consideration for performance? I will have to dig through my paper to find out.

At METO power, "The rate of climb single engine of the DC-3 with the landing gear down and full flap is practically zero. 1/2 flap the rate of climb is very low"

Apparently on the single engine chart, Single Engine En-route climb is 250FPM with inop prop feathered, METO power, flaps up gear up.

26,200lbs Max Gross for PAX
First Segment = BHP-1200HP(takeoff power&RPM)/inop propeller windmilling/gear down/flaps up = dismal 80FPM
Second Segment = BHP1200/inop prop windmilling/gear up/flaps up = 225FPM Better!!
Third Segment = BHP1200/inop prop feathered/gear up/flaps up = 330FPM
Fourth segment is with I think METO power, gives you about 210 FPM

I am assuming that these charts use ISA for them. I don't see anything for temp correction. There is a density altitude chart. I don't see anywhere where it says to use it though. It doesn't say if the altitudes are pressure altitudes or not either.

Soooo if it's hot out, you have a penalty, add a low altimeter setting.... Those rates of climb don't add up to too much.
Oh and if that "O" word is used, another penalty to climb performance.

Hope that provides some insight!

[EA757]

Adiabatic,

Thank you..
Wow.
Eye opener.

And presumably,
operators of DC-3's know this,
and Transport Canada knows this.

[Doc]

Keep in mind that Adiabatic's numbers reflect (as always) a new airframe, flown by the test pilots during the certification process. Add that into the mix and they're lucky the things climb at all!
I flew one 110 miles after having an engine go on approach to Little Grand Rapids, all the way back to Red Lake at 400 feet. That's all I could get out of her. Any attempt to climb resulted in too great a loss in air speed. It wasn't very pretty. The pop and chips were nervous.

[Doc]

And presumably,
operators of DC-3's know this,
and Transport Canada knows this.

This is NO secret.

[EA757]

Thank you Doc....

[Adiabatic]

You're welcome!

I would agree also that these numbers would reflect a new machine, and 100% engines to boot! Not overhauled engines. However; I'm not a professional at maintenance, but does a decent overhaul mean pretty much a new engine?

I flew one for about 15 miles at 400', takeoff RPM, 43" MP (5" short of T/O), at 85kts. 15 miles felt like 300 miles then. Landed flapless, put the gear down a mile back. That engine blaring in my ear. It was -20C at altitude...about 3/4 of a load in the back.

AB

[midwingcrisis]

I seem to recall the charts are sans deice boots also.

[EA757]

Earlier when I said

"And presumably,
operators of DC-3's know this,
and Transport Canada knows this.",

It was not my intention to sound
naive nor ignorant.

I was hoping questions might have been
raised, like.

Is there no weight restriction to prevent
a crash landing?

Is there no SMS policy in place regarding
a restriction?

Is the Captain solely responsible for the
decision to take an aircraft that will not
climb on one engine?

Is there an SMS policy that indicates
an aircraft must be able to climb at 350
(arbitrary number here) fpm based on
all available data before being dispatched..

I make no accusations of any kind, I merely
ask questions that are of relevance to this
incident, and I wish no one harm nor hurt...

I am really curious...

[Adiabatic]

Net Take-off flight path and Enroute Limitations with One Engine Inoperative as per TC CARS 705 Ops
705.57, 705.58

I think that section covers whatever TC is concerned with. As far as SMS, I'm not sure...

There is other good info in the same section.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... htm#705_57

The flight is self dispatched, and is at the Captain's discretion.
Does that mean its right if no one else gets a say? No. Does it happen? Yes....

[Nwtflier]

Is there no SMS policy in place regarding
a restriction?

Is there an SMS policy that indicates
an aircraft must be able to climb at 350
(arbitrary number here) fpm based on
all available data before being dispatched..

grandfathered in, if anything like that exists

[EA757]

Adiabatic,

Thanks for those straight forward
answers.

You're certainly well informed and
knowledgeable about this matter,
and I appreciate you sharing that
with me.

[ragbagflyer]

26,200lbs Max Gross for PAX
First Segment = BHP-1200HP(takeoff power&RPM)/inop propeller windmilling/gear down/flaps up = dismal 80FPM
Second Segment = BHP1200/inop prop windmilling/gear up/flaps up = 225FPM Better!!
Third Segment = BHP1200/inop prop feathered/gear up/flaps up = 330FPM
Fourth segment is with I think METO power, gives you about 210 FPM

So these performance numbers meet 705 criteria? I thought better than this was required. That's a lot of bodies to be climbing out with at 80 FPM.