And yet another Caravan crash in Ecuador

bugspray · Post by **bugspray** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 1:57 pm

Date: March 24 2006 Time: c 11:40
Location: Cuenca, Ecuador
Operator: ATESA
AC Type: Cessna 208B Grand Caravan
Reg: HC-BXD cn: 208B-0591
Aboard: 14 Fatalities: 5 Ground: 0
Route: Cuenca - Macas
Details: Shortly after taking off, the plane lost altitude and crashed into the side of a tire factory

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/

Does this not send a message?

greenwich · Post by **greenwich** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 2:01 pm

bugspray wrote: Does this not send a message?

WHAT!

Ahhh, another moron on AvCanada!

G

Desert Duster · Post by **Desert Duster** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 2:12 pm

what message? we should ban flying cause it is dangerous. or maybe just cessna products, and yet maybe just ban aircraft powered by P&W.
Lets see the facts here, 14 people in Cuenca, Ecuador. Maybe overweight? maybe C of G problems, density altitude, severe weather (thunderstorms) or numerous other possibilities.
But before we ban the Caravan, maybe we should ban the turbine Otter and the Beaver, and we will get rid of all the real workhorse A/C at one time.

greenwich · Post by **greenwich** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 2:17 pm

'Desert Duster'...

Really well said!! Thanks!!

Man, I wish that more people on this site would actually think before they wrote!

Be 'objective' and intelligent...don't just write B.S. for the sake of writing something.

G

CAL · Post by **CAL** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 2:26 pm

was that three today?.....what is the tally for the year? just curious

It amazes me to see the numbers of fatalities associated with these airplanes....14?? on a caravan?....and how many in Colombia like 12 on board...when pilots are willing to take on that much weight they are asking for it...

bugspray · Post by **bugspray** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 2:29 pm

Obviously my comment was taken out of context. Rather than jump up and down and throw a fit like a little child, it would be much more mature for you both to just grow up.....
These latest two crashes (2 in 1 week) just adds fuel to the fire about the dependability and reliability and safety of the ongoing discussion of this aircaft and where and how it should be operated. Say what you want.... There is a problem.. and when the salesman for caravan dies doing what he is trying to sell, and you have 2 a/c crash within a week, and how many in the last 6 mohths??.... i for one believe this all does indeed send a message!

bugspray · Post by **bugspray** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 2:40 pm

Oh.. one more caravan crash for all you van cheerleaders.....

http://aviation-safety.net/database/rec ... -0&lang=en

Status: Preliminary
Date: 05 MAR 2006
Time: ca 15:45
Type: Cessna 208B Grand Caravan
Operator: Servicios Aéreos Sucre - SASCA
Registration: YV-1149C
C/n / msn:
Year built:
Crew: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 2
Passengers: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 11
Total: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 13
Airplane damage: Written off
Location: Arekuna (Venezuela)
Phase: En route
Nature: Passenger
Departure airport: Porlamar-DelCaribe Gen S Marino Airport (PMV)
Destination airport: Canaima Airport (CAJ)
Narrative:
The Cessna departed Porlamar (PMV) at 15:09 on a flight to Canaima (CAJ). On board were eleven Czech tourists. Some twenty minutes short of Canaima, the engine quit. The airplane began to descend from its cruising altitude of 10000 feet. The pilots managed to keep the airplane airborne for twelve minutes. A forced landing was carried out near the Arekuna Camp, located close to the Canaima National Park. On landing the aircraft ran into a ditch and overturned.

Events:

Result - Emergency, forced landing - Outside airport

but.. i thought these engines don't quit.. ... how many is that....3..maybe 4 this month?.. how can anyone justify flying these things SEIFR??

Out of Control · Post by **Out of Control** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 2:47 pm

They keep running as long as there is fuel in the tanks.

wallypilot · Post by **wallypilot** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 3:14 pm

hey bigspray.....ever flown a caravan?

take a close look at most of these reports and you will find that pilot error is probably the major cause.

i will say it again, as i and others have said several times over in this forum: the caravan is an extremely useful, versatile, safe, and reliable airplane when used as it was designed to be used. Venture outside parameters of the tasks it was designed for and you could get bitten. Experienced caravan drivers/operators know this and conduct their operations accordingly. Those that don't respect the limitations of the caravan HAVE BEEN bitten. SB(not the recent accident...the one a few years ago), Geor. Exp, etc. I bet that the incident in california will reveal weather to be a major factor. storms can get big down there this time of year.

This is no different than any other aircraft design. Use it as it was intended to be used. It's a single engine...respect that. It's a very draggy airplane...respect that. Great care is required for high altitude airports. Nuf said.

JigglyBus · Post by **JigglyBus** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 3:31 pm

Bugs.....

I seem to recall you saying in the past, how great the turbine otter was/is....

If your against the 208, don't you also have to be against the 3T?

What is your point?

Pinocchio · Post by **Pinocchio** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 3:40 pm

Desert Duster wrote: But before we ban the Caravan, maybe we should ban the turbine Otter and the Beaver, and we will get rid of all the real workhorse A/C at one time.

Sorry, choked on this one - please - please - please....Vans are OK in their place but to include them in the company of DHCT's???? To quote Larry the cable guy - "now thet thare is funny!!!!"

Of course the 3T Garrett is in a class of it's own admittably.

greenwich · Post by **greenwich** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 4:40 pm

Bugs...

Firstly, Caravan's have been around since before you were born. So you can't really start using the argument that there have been numerous recent Caravan crashes and therefor the Caravan is 'suspect'!!

Also, anyone can go on-line and download incident/accident reports and 'paint' a picture that a certain aircraft is 'bad'. Try and find C-172 incidents/accidents in the USA...you will find thousands. So lets ground all C-172's and open an investigation!

And I'm sure Venezuela and Ecuador have real safe and reputable aviation companies with excellent maintenance...not to mention a competent governing body (like TC in Canada).

And you Single Otter and Beaver lovers...WTF...you'd sooner fly a 1950's A/C with 20,000TT than a 2005 Grand Caravan. Aaaaah, NO!

G

Pinocchio · Post by **Pinocchio** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 4:56 pm

greenwich wrote:Bugs...

And you Single Otter and Beaver lovers...WTF...you'd sooner fly a 1950's A/C with 20,000TT than a 2005 Grand Caravan. Aaaaah, NO!

G

Aaaaah Yah!!

Lets go all up at 9k lbs. on 32C glassy day - least I know I'll be flying while yur tredding water

BTW - yur signature is totally ironic

overrun · Post by **overrun** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 6:00 pm

Greenwich wrote

Bugs...

And you Single Otter and Beaver lovers...WTF...you'd sooner fly a 1950's A/C with 20,000TT than a 2005 Grand Caravan. Aaaaah, NO!

G

Have you ever flown a beaver or an otter? If not you should not comment on what you don't know. They are both excellent airplanes and call me olde fashioned but you can't beat the sound of a radial.

and alas.......................... the van's not too shabby either.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 6:19 pm

" and alas.......................... the van's not too shabby either. "

However on floats, especially amphibious floats they have not proved to be all that successful out here on the west coast, especially in swells and rough water.

We have to be seen as to be unbiased here.

bugspray · Post by **bugspray** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 6:50 pm

The entire point is being missed here. The whole purpose of this thread is to question the reliability of the caravan in the SEIFR environment. Have i flown one? Yes. Has the caravan been around since before i was born? Again, i say grow up if you have nothing intelligent to say. I was in Baghdad when you were still in your dad's bag. Within the first 10 hrs of my caravan experience i had a near engine failure where the engine had to be reoverhauled. I agree its a great a/c for its intended purpose. However, we as pilots do not make that decision as to where and how it is to be operated. The company makes that decision and expects YOU as a pilot to do what THEY want you to do with it. If you refuse, you get fired. I am quite happy not to be flying the caravan IFR in the mountains. Thats not what it's intended for and if i am expected to do it, no, i will not. It's my life, and i will look after number 1. I take comfort in the fact i am doing all i can to keep passengers safe by refusing a job that puts them in in an extremely high risk situation. The unfortunate thing is, there is always another pilot who will take these passengers into these situations. I will however fly the caravan in an envrionment it is designed for. Keep it out of the bush where its not meant to be and out of the clouds where its not meant to be, and its a fine aircraft. However, the operators don't look at it this way. And if you don't know how to say no as a pilot, you may well end up being another statistic. Many operators are only concerned about money and being cheaper than the competion or keeping competion out . And there is always someone who will fill your shoes and fly that a/c cus they need the job. Some of the comments that have been made here leads me to think some people are quite wet behind the ears yet and have a lot to learn. Others just have the "it won't happen to me attitude". These latest serious of crashes should make one really consider how safe it is to be flying in the mountains with one engine in the clouds. When you have a demonstrator airplane crashing and killing the sales rep on board, how do you continue to justify and sell this SEIFR issue?
I know nothing ever said will change the minds of the pro van clan, but if there is no problem, why is it so controversial?

I'm sure this stirred the pot again

The Other Kind · Post by **The Other Kind** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 9:51 pm

Lets go all up at 9k lbs. on 32C glassy day - least I know I'll be flying while yur tredding water

You've obviously never flown a 'van. I've flown over a thousand hours in this bird, lots of heavy loads and hot days and it never failed me once. Best damn float machine I've ever flown.

Pinocchio · Post by **Pinocchio** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:16 pm

Dust Devil · Post by **Dust Devil** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:58 pm

I still say we ban retractible gear

CID · Post by **CID** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 6:59 am

The entire point is being missed here. The whole purpose of this thread is to question the reliability of the caravan in the SEIFR environment.

If that in fact is the point (and it's a good point) then comparing the Caravan with Beavers and Otters is a waste of time since neither is approved for SEIFR, and should never be in my opinion.

Having said that, the two recent crashes in South America don't mean much to me. Crashing airplanes, especially the smaller variety, seems to be a pastime in South American countries and are often the result of poor judgement or poor maintenance.

But, this does support one point I make over and over about SEIFR commercial ops. An engine CAN quit even very reliable ones and when this single point failure occurs, there are very few options especially over rugged terrain or in IMC.

I for one am quite disapointed in TC for allowing commercial SEIFR and I refuse to pay for ticket on one these potential deathtraps.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:02 am

Here we go again! Bugspray....go fly one...then get back to us with your wisdom!
Cat....they are not/never have been good float planes! They were never intended to be good float planes....frikken float operators will stick floats under almost anything with wings....then bitch and moan about that airplane not being a good float plane...and the beat goes on....
The Caravan was designed by FEDEX and Cessna to carry 2500 pounds of small boxes, 200-250 miles from/to paved runways...AND...there has never been a better airplane....EVER.....for doing THAT!!

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:10 am

CID...I dont recall anything mentioned about your "pet peeve" SEIFR? I dont know what the wx was, or indeed if an engine stopped.
More likely than not, poor training, large ego, perhaps slightly outside the envelope? CFIT?
But, I think we/you have pretty much made your/our feelings on that other subject known? Perhaps we can let sleeping dogs lie.....or at least whine to our MP's, or somebody who can do something about it...rather than start another round of verbal diarrhea?
Dont mean to get you all hot and bothered her young lady...you do understand?

CID · Post by **CID** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:32 am

CID...I dont recall anything mentioned about your "pet peeve" SEIFR?

Doc, put your specs on and read the quote I included in my post. The SEIFR issue was indeed raised.

More likely than not, poor training, large ego, perhaps slightly outside the envelope?

Again, specs. Thats pretty much what I said.

rather than start another round of verbal diarrhea?

Damn. It's too late!

Dont mean to get you all hot and bothered her young lady...you do understand?

I do declare sir, I think I'm suffering a bout of the vapours.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:48 am

It's them damned hot flashes! Specs are on....SEIFR was indeed mentioned, but did it have anything to do with the accident? I dont know. Does anybody?

CID · Post by **CID** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:54 am

SEIFR was indeed mentioned, but did it have anything to do with the accident? I dont know. Does anybody?

Agree totally. That's why I said:

Crashing airplanes, especially the smaller variety, seems to be a pastime in South American countries and are often the result of poor judgement or poor maintenance.

Are you sure you read my post?

And yet another Caravan crash in Ecuador

And yet another Caravan crash in Ecuador

Re: And yet another Caravan crash in Ecuador