Buffalo Joe temporary shut down?

[fish4life]

How many 705 operators period do? I hope almost Zero

[PositiveRate27]

The MoT are gonna be busy little bees if they ground every operator who doesn't complete a w&b before every flight. Just sayin.'

How many 705 operators that crash once a year fall into that category?

I've worked Flight Instructing, 703/704/705 and W&B was done prior to every flight, even the sketchy operators. I'm not sure there are a large number of operators that don't.

[lownslow]

I've worked Flight Instructing, 703/704/705 and W&B was done prior to every flight, even the sketchy operators.

I'm thinking maybe the word accurate needs to be thrown in there.

[7ECA]

Funny how one can read through the CADORS of plenty of fairly major companies, and find a lot of engine failures, shut-downs, precautionary landings, etc. And yet those companies don't seem to be falling under the microscope of TC.

Not that I'm saying there is anything necessarily sketchy going on - but TC does have a certain reputation for going rather apeshite when you "insult" or piss them off (there's nothing quite like beating them at the Tribunal to get them really out for blood).

[PositiveRate27]

I've worked Flight Instructing, 703/704/705 and W&B was done prior to every flight, even the sketchy operators.

I'm thinking maybe the word accurate needs to be thrown in there.

Absolutely, and even at the sketchy ones I was never hastled for doing it correct. That didnt stop other volunteers from "forgetting to carry the 1..." Lots of times fudging W&B is a perceived pressure.

There is also a difference between fudging the numbers a bit and being aware of where you exceed limits, and blasting off completely unaware of your C of G and loading and finding out afterwards where you sit.

[bobcaygeon]

Funny how one can read through the CADORS of plenty of fairly major companies, and find a lot of engine failures, shut-downs, precautionary landings, etc. And yet those companies don't seem to be falling under the microscope of TC.

Not that I'm saying there is anything necessarily sketchy going on - but TC does have a certain reputation for going rather apeshite when you "insult" or piss them off (there's nothing quite like beating them at the Tribunal to get them really out for blood).

Those operators don't crash regularly if at all or they get a NOS if the deserve it and they fix it before the suspension goes into effect.
Deliberate Antagonism gets you nowhere in any business.

[PositiveRate27]

Funny how one can read through the CADORS of plenty of fairly major companies, and find a lot of engine failures, shut-downs, precautionary landings, etc. And yet those companies don't seem to be falling under the microscope of TC.

Not that I'm saying there is anything necessarily sketchy going on - but TC does have a certain reputation for going rather apeshite when you "insult" or piss them off (there's nothing quite like beating them at the Tribunal to get them really out for blood).

Those operators don't crash regularly if at all or they get a NOS if the deserve it and they fix it before the suspension goes into effect.
Deliberate Antagonism gets you nowhere in any business.

We'll put. You also have to factor in flights per day. An airline running 800 flights per day is gonna show up more in the CADOR than an airline that flies 50. If they are showing up the same amount they might have problems.

[MUSKEG]

QUOTE
There is also a difference between fudging the numbers a bit and being aware of where you exceed limits, and blasting off completely unaware of your C of G and loading and finding out afterwards where you sit.

Really? There would be zero difference in the court of law in my opinion. No different than blowing .09 and driving or being so shitfaced you're scared to blow and driving.

[Rockie]

Deliberate Antagonism gets you nowhere in any business.

No kidding. Transport Canada has regulatory and enforcement authority over every Aviation Document holder, publicly insulting them repeatedly is going to invite understandable scrutiny. I'm not talking about justifiable criticism on policy, I'm talking about the personally demeaning crap some people like to dish out. If you're dumb enough to give every cop you see the finger you'll find yourself pulled over a lot.

[PositiveRate27]

QUOTE
There is also a difference between fudging the numbers a bit and being aware of where you exceed limits, and blasting off completely unaware of your C of G and loading and finding out afterwards where you sit.

Really? There would be zero difference in the court of law in my opinion. No different than blowing .09 and driving or being so shitfaced you're scared to blow and driving.

You're quite right, however, the latter is still safer than the former. TC will work with companies to get them up to standard before they yank their ops certificates. Discovering a company fudges numbers slightly is different from discovering a company doesn't do W&B at all.

I am not advocating that this the right thing to do.

[SAR_YQQ]

The MoT are gonna be busy little bees if they ground every operator who doesn't complete a w&b before every flight. Just sayin.'

Those sorts of comments are what scare me about the commercial flying operations in the world. Don't bother even walking the airplane, no point to that either...

[Jean-Pierre]

sending a Basler

<------ it's a DC3 !!!!!!!! there is no such aeroplane as a Basler -- DC3T is the designation

What's a BT-67 then?

[goingnowherefast]

BT-67 is marketing. It's a DC3 with turbine engines that make it modern, safer, more reliable and more useful.

Turbo Beaver is still a DHC-2. A Basler is still a DC3.

[fish4life]

But a turbo beaver doesn't include a fuselage extension, completely reworked systems and a zero time airframe.

[Meatservo]

Strictly speaking, "Basler Turbo Conversions Ltd." modifies the DC-3 in accordance with STC SA4840NM. It's a "supplemental type certificate". It "incorporates by reference the original type certificate" which, in this case, is the DC-3. There is no way that aircraft is not a DC-3.

The language in the company's website is written in a slightly ambiguous fashion. Most of the copy makes reference to the overall excellence of the DC-3, and even calls the BT-67 "beyond a doubt the world's most experienced all-purpose aircraft" or something like that, which is not how I would describe any aircraft that isn't a DC-3. They don't ever say it's not a DC-3, while they seem to be trying to avoid using the terms "DC-3" and "BT-67" in the same sentence . It must have been kind of tough to find a way to market a product like this.

The fact is, they can't or don't manufacture a new one. For every BT-67 that rolls out one end of the hangar, a DC-3 is shovelled into the other end.

You can call it whatever you like, in fact I find this conversion to be very clean and tasteful, and they don't go to any effort to convince anyone it's anything other than a zero-timed, updated DC-3.

I suppose if your uncle Bob had drastic cosmetic surgery but had the same brain, he would still be "Bob". Aeroplanes don't have brains, so when you modify one, it is really up to popular opinion whether or not it's the "same" aeroplane, or a different one made out of parts from a different kind of aeroplane. THESE aeroplanes however, still exist in accordance with the original DC-3 type certificate, modified in accordance with an STC. Just like a turbo-Otter.

So it's a DC-3.... a fricken' awesome one.

[springlocked]

But a turbo beaver doesn't include a fuselage extension, completely reworked systems and a zero time airframe.

The airframe is not zero timed. AWD's are all cleared but the total airframe time remains -- a new BT-67 conversion rolls out with thousands of hours on the airframe.

[PilotDAR]

So it's a DC-3.... a fricken' awesome one

Evidence will be what TC thinks it is. They are registered as DC-3's

[fish4life]

But a turbo beaver doesn't include a fuselage extension, completely reworked systems and a zero time airframe.

The airframe is not zero timed. AWD's are all cleared but the total airframe time remains -- a new BT-67 conversion rolls out with thousands of hours on the airframe.

Sorry to clarify it is rated as a 0 time airframe. Although I'm not 100% sure on this I don't think it matters how many hours the old DC-3 goes into the conversion with, when it comes out the other side as far as maintenance and inspections go it is considered a 0 time airframe.

[springlocked]

when it comes out the other side as far as maintenance and inspections go it is considered a 0 time airframe.

No wonder life is so complicated

[groncher]

The airframe is not zero timed. From any perspective.

Your DC-3 goes into Basler with 25000 hours and the wings are due for replacement at 30000 hours. (hypothetical)
It comes out all shiny and new looking, it has turbines, new avionics,a longer fuselage and they call it a BT-67. But it's still a DC-3 and it has the same wings. It still has 25000 hours TTSN and the wings are due at 30000. So it is not really zero timed is it?

[Moose47]

G'day

Whatever you call it, just don't call it a Boeing DC-3 or McDonnell Douglas DC-3!!!!!

[fish4life]

This is right from the Basler website

"After thousands of hours of design, each BT-67 is engineered to assure that every component, assembly, or system is either new or the equivalent of new...

Airframe;
Inspected and overhauled to fully re-engineer and strengthen airframe. Returns airframe to original specifications, or exceeds original specification includes a structural reinforcement package. RATED AS ZERO ACCUMULATED FATIGUE DAMAGE"

[lownslow]

Whatever you call it, just don't call it a Boeing DC-3 or McDonnell Douglas DC-3!!!!!

But it would look so nice on my resume between the Textron 172 and Hawker Siddeley Tiger Moth...

[Angusnofangus]

But a turbo beaver doesn't include a fuselage extension, completely reworked systems and a zero time airframe.

If said Beaver started life with an R-985 and was converted to turbine, it was indeed stretched, about 3 feet.

[goingnowherefast]

Any more news on the Buffalo Air situation? Pilots looking for work, or is it still "temporary"?