Twin Otter, get real. ATPL or what ever - get real!

You allready have the most exspesive 20 min flights!

Cost cycl's on shut down on the Maun to Camp flights on 1 engine only.

The Caravan works well in the rest of the World, You guys have a problem - find it!!! Dont tell me about the Delta yes have seen it - that is not a problem!!!!!!!!

Caravans have only realy been in Maun a short time Sef got the first that are in use, but they were tried some years before that.

Why should the supposed reality of economic self interest stand in the way of aviation safety and an increase in price structuring on those whose shoulders are the broadest and can thus afford the increase in cost, in other words, the affluent tourist.

Oh why thank you...very accurate indeed. These damn youngsters who know nothing hey SRT. Must really piss on your battery.

So please explain to meas to why the Caravan is not a good 'bush plane' then...which was in your original post?! I always stand to be corrected.

Shooting your mouth off re subjects of which you have little or no knowledge will attract the sciolist tag. Look around you. Bots is not exactly a harsh bush environment. Try PNG, Arctic/Antarctic/Alaska/North West Territories for those. Point being the 'Van is not particularly rugged (try putting one on floats into even a mild chop and see what becomes of your firewall), not a particularly good short field machine and is not something that can be operated with minimal attention to the mechanical bits. In short, it's a bit soft for the job. Good for tar to tar, great for the short hop freight role for which Fedex wanted it but a bit of a liability trying to land in soft mud, four inches of water or a seriously unprepared strip.

Some might have thought that a rudder tiller was a euphemism for nose wheel steering below certain airspeeds to compensate for the 7-9 degree efficacy of the actual rudder pedals on the nose wheel gear assembly on aircraft heavier than the teeny tiny range. Others might have noticed that Wilderness Air are delighted with the Cessna 208B which it says, on its own website, is capable of taking off from nearly all strips it services. But the website neglects to tell the tourist what the company uses on the other airstrips it services. Strips which are, presumably, too tough for the Cessna Caravan which was indeed invented pretty much for its launch customer, Fedex, and which just loves the fabulius runways so common to US night freight runs. Only the Russians make a really good bush plane, the Kukuruznik, but the preflight for that machine takes a full half hour and you get your hands oily doing it so that cramps it up a little for the white scarf and goggles brigade.
Toodle pup or do I mean pip?

If you refer to the venerable AN2, Mr Cheetah, one has made that mistake. Stood under the exhaust drain valve the first time one pre flighted the beast and got half a litre of old engine oil square in the eye for one's efforts.

Fortunately we learn from our mistakes.



Mostly...

The oil and the battery, two good uses for a frisky first officer?

One is afeared of Russkyi akkumulators, yer Catship. Always think they're watching me and waiting for their opportunity to leak or explode.

MWOMP - unless you were on a safari with midgets, this weight and balance would have been over the TO limit with an hours worth of flying and the 20kg luggage restrictions most operators use - used to be 10 or 12kg.
Not such a smart move.

My comment was in agreement with Foxcotte - and making reference to being heavy - not overweight - would have made the EFATO even more challenging.


:ugh:

I would hazard a guess that if you're using the notional weights of either 70/80kg for a male, 60/70 for a female and 20kg for baggage including the hand or lap stuff, that your load sheet will always be pretty much a fabrication.
So it's midgets all round and don't throw them around the room or you'll be out of the rugby like old Mr Phipps, Zara's room mate. Mind you, he at least got a second chance. As for such matters as weight and EFATO in a one engined wind up, glide speed stays the same as I recollect from my days teaching the forces. So what has happened these days to the EFATO airmanship field that all pilots used to predeterminedly select in case of an EFATO and practice getting into as well. Gosh, anyone out there remember, was it 35 at FAGM, the one with the mine dumps? Not a place for sissys at night in a one engined plank.

SRT, although it doesn't work so well in the deep bush that you are describing, in Botswana, the caravan has no issues.

Most loads will not be bigger than 10 or 12 people. It is quick and easy to load and unload, with a large enough cabin to keep most people comfortable in the hour or so hops.
Easily converted to a freight config and easily deals with the strips that we fly into and out of.

So while it might not be a perfect bush plane, it has been adapted to this role pretty easily.


@ Cc, Its all well and good having a field to go to after takeoff, but in this strip, there are very few options available to you.
Plus you have to be able to reach them, specially if that crazy rumour of someone jumping out midflight. Would turn the glide characteristics akin to that of a brick.

It seems all a bit academic to argue about weight issues when the plane sucessfully got airborne off this purportedly too short runway. I'm reliably informed that two passengers on board had no luggage and several others were small ladies. Its not the take off that was the issue, but what happened to the aircraft that prevented it flying away that really counts.

However leaving this subject aside, the mayday call apparently contained the word 'fire' in some context, and the propeller was at dead stop when it impacted the ground. Not really much to work with for the poor pilot.

Fox, you may want to check that mayday call info. I was chatting to the guy who heard the mayday call, and he made no mention of a fire on board.

Why? Weight doesn't affect glide range. Wouldn't have made a difference one way or the other.

He wasn't overweight or too heavy for the airstrip. He didn't hit the trees. He lost power for reasons no one will probably ever know, got the airplane down and the impact was survivable. Unfortunately the fire wasn't.

Moremi Air Web Site
 

Why has Moremi Air taken down their web site? This is leading to rumours in the travel industry that they are no longer operating. Is a re-branding in the 'air'?

Looks like a DNS or server config foulup at their ISP
Has anyone told them that it is down ?

And removed from Wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moremi_Air

I think next season may see a 'Kwando Air'. Or possibly 'Botswana Sky Air'.

OVERWEIGHT - NOT
 

You keep going on and on about AKD being overweight. Yet you do no research, ask no questions, put in no effort. Have you flown out of this airstrip or are you calculating your posts from your armchair? It is a fair question when you are potentially damaging someones reputation.

This is what I have found out.

This careful pilot did not get to his advanced age by being an idiot. I have been told he flew in the Delta before. So unfamiliarity would not be an issue.

The aircraft was equipped with an ADAS system (see what you can find out if you put in some effort), therefore its engine history is known. The engine was installed in mid 2009 (as I was told) so not exceptionally old.

Now for your weight issue

This aircraft was equipped with an APE II conversion. For the naive this means the aircraft's MAUW for take-off was 9062 lbs. It did not have an APE III or APE STOL conversions installed (look it up).

I have been told by two pilots in Maun that Martin called 3 hours fuel on departure. Depending on the company's operating parameters that would put his fuel in the 900-930 lbs area. After he burned roughly 300-330 lbs (for the 1:15 flight), that would give him about 600 lbs fuel.

I was told he was then flying to Pom Pom (20 min) and back to Maun 20 min.

Now calculate your weight and balances, satisfy yourself that the aircraft was not overweight and please stop slinging mud.

Investigation
 

My sources inform me that there is a considerable hold up in the investigation for reasons unknown. This is not good for Moremi Air and all other stakeholders. Does anyone know what is actually happening - if anything?

Capt Livingston-I would be surprised if much progress is being made on an investigation.
Personally I think a few people in Maun are hoping that all this will blow over so that everyone can carry on as normal. This whole accident has been swept under the carpet yet many people couldn't see it coming or did but nothing was done. Wonder what will become of Moremi Air?:ouch:

Was it necessary for CAA Botswana to approve the APE conversion and the hypothetical improved weight increase of 312lbs? Were the POH and SOPs amended accordingly and in accordance with legal and/or Cessna's requirements?
If MAUW is an acronym for maximum all up weight then does this 'structural' limit permit the pilot to disregard the parameters that would usually determine WAT limits and all the usual utterly boring tables and graphs that appear in the back of most POHs and which, generally speaking, serve to reduce the MAUW according to the specific conditions of the day and location?
In what, other than a commercial enterprise, might Moremi Air have been described as being a stakeholder?

Pay load extenders or not, he wasn't heavy.

Why is it that pilots on this site are so eager to eat their own? I remember the thread about that poor kid in Namibia with the c210 that broke up in mid-air, half the posts where from other pilots certain that he was doing aileron rolls and deserved what he got. Someone even posted some story that the indigo track log proved he was doing aerobatics. That turned out to be bull****. And now people suspect that this pilot, who by all accounts was very experienced and conservative, negligently caused an accident that resulted in 9 people burning to death including himself. From what little information is available it looks to me that he did the best that could be done in an extremely bad situation and in the end he wasn't lucky. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

It's one thing to hear this crap from ambulance chasing lawyers and hack journalists, but i suspect the mathematically challenged pilots whining on pprune about overweight caravans, short runways, or whether or not CAA Bots approved an ape conversion?? would necessarily do any better when their engine packs up after take off.

I don't know but wouldn't want to have to try it again though, not matter how many engines. That's got absolutely nothing to do with anything anyway. But there's much less criticism of any individual going on here than you'd perhaps choose to read into the posts. General discussions of aspects involving aviation failures, whether human or mechanical, require a process which involves both man and machine and to leap at discussion and call it criticism is a weak form of debate. At this stage it's not reasonable to speculate on pilot negligence. It might though, be relevant, intelligent or even amusing to establish on the forum whether the aircraft was certified to fly commercially with such a conversion. That's surely a fact that should be of interest to pilots as well as to the CAA? No doubt any inquiry will consider the details sufficient to enable it to determine that the aircraft was flown within its envelope. That would also then be a determined fact which might or might not reflect on the pilot who should be innocent, if only for the sake of his family, until whenever and if ever it is shown that he was not.

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about weight, which in this case is irrelevant. From all of the (admittedly limited) information that we have the aircraft took off and climbed successfully so weight was NOT the cause.

There is no evidence available to us to suggest that the aircraft was not operated within its limits, nor is there any evidence to suggest that anyone (including the pilot) did anything which contributed to the accident.

The pilot was highly experienced and was known for his carefull safety attitude.

The evidence suggests an engine failure, possibly including an engine fire, shortly after takeoff. The causes of this failure are subject to investigation and would almost certainly be of a complex technical nature.

Please stop speculating and wait for the official report, it can often take over a year for a complex investigation to be completed especially in cases where the engine and possibly other items have to be shipped to the manufacturer for investigation. If there were any safety related information available it would have been released as an interim report suggesting any actions to prevent a recurrance.

Any comments which might infer blame are at best unhelpfull and contrary to the fundamental principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Rico: Ancient Geek: From my experience I agree with you both. Also I am sure that we all agree that examining the engine should be taking top priority. Why then did the unit sit in for Maun for so long after it was recovered? Also, why is it now in Johannesburg, untouched, instead of with the manufacturer?

I agree that the majority in Maun will hope that this is forgotten. This cannot happen for the sake of the pilot and the families. Not to mention Air Safety! Operators of this aircraft need to know what happened. The publishing of the report will bring this accident back into the limelight. The sooner it happens the better even if it is just an interim report.

As for Moremi Air, I think Exascot has it right - a re-branding. It will not be the first time after an operator's record has been blemished.

WAT details
 

You have put forward the subject of the performance tables for the aircraft.
Perhaps someone should work through them and come up with some figures that might help with this subject.

Is Mr. Cheetah prepared or in a position to present this forum some figures? Not meaning to be offensive, after all you did bring this subject up.

Does anyone have the QNH & the Temperature for the day of the accident.

I do not have access to a C208B Flight Manual but will try to find one.

The business of extrapolating figures from performance manuals is surely one best left to a board of inquiry?

For the love of christ.
WEIGHT IS NOT AN ISSUE.
THE PLANE GOT AIRBORNE.
FLEW FOR 500M AND CAME DOWN AGAIN.

Yebbut we cant let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.:ugh:

Grassy knoll, Black helicopter, YAWN.
Cupid stunts.

Board Of ...... (what)
 

So we cannot take it upon ourselves to explore the performance of the day and look at the aircraft's ability to operate legally, but some of us can sit here and make passing comments about having too many persons on board and when someone (FlyingHam - I think) addresses the weight issue with seemingly new information (if it can be confirmed) you say the aircraft/pilot was not looking at the WAT tables or hypothosizing he didn't.

Are you not possibly sullying someone's reputation postmortem, and now not willing to do the work that could disprove your comments??

Anyone else want to pick up where Cheetah seems unable to?

An aircraft's ability to operate legally is not in question and anyone is at liberty to explore any avenue of research that they might wish. There's a certain degree of what appears to be emotive misinterpretation, deliberate or unintentional, of previous posts flitting around, as in the misconstruing of #103 for example. All pilots are always inherently innocent of everything of course; but I should think it a reasonable argument, in the abstract subject of aerodynamics with no relation to this incident, that weight, which of course may be disregarded in this case, could play a small part, aerodynamically, in what happens to an aircraft once it has become airborne and before it reaches the ground surface again no matter the number of engines on the machine.
So let me now try synthesize things in the specific rather than the general. It has not been the intention to impugn the pilot involved in this incident and I am quite happy to apologize to his memory if previous comments have been misinterpreted.

That sounds pretty specific to me, not least because you posted it in a thread about a specific accident involving a specific pilot. It also manages to sound very critical and condescending, but I guess that could be just another example of "emotive misinterpretation."

Maybe there would be fewer misinterpretations if you moved your ruminations and bloviations on abstract aerodynamic theory to a thread that isn't about real dead people?

No I do not think Mr. Cheetah should remove the comments he made. The apology he made should be enough and maybe an edit to that post for clarification.

People who remove things after they have posted them tend to look like children in grade school getting a "do over" to make everything look right.

All of us (most anyway) are both professional pilot's and adults and therefore we must take responsibility for what we say and do - even in this forum.

Just like the media we should be held to some measure of accountability - if at very least by ourselves as people and realizing that one unfortunate day "it could" be us on the spot. Either trying to defend ourselves after an accident or having our family read and listen to people comment on our alleged actions.

In short let us stick to research to support facts. If you are going to comment do the research and present the facts!

Therefore removing a post only serves to limit the damage to the person posting it. Take the hit and think twice next time.

Mr Cheetah has no intention of removing his posts which, as reference to #47 and #64 (I haven't a clue who poor old Martin was (RIP) so disregard him in what follows.) should indicate, were directed in general rather than with reference to any specific pilot. Those who have a problem in comprehending that should perhaps look to their own psychometric capabilities and their ability to think rationally out of the box and in the context of the big picture. If that last comment is construed as being critical and condescending then please accept the assurance that perhaps it is so intended.

Just so you know lilflyboy, the reason I would like to crush the weight issue is if you let people rattle on about a subject for long enough then all it is that other's think about - esspecially the naive/ignorant - is "was the aircraft too heavy". Yes we understand it got airborne and flew 500 meters, but some people just like to spice up the mix by adding variables without facts. I do not believe the aircraft was too heavy.


But some like Mr. Cheetah and too a lesser extent Tango 24 with his - no 11 out of Xaxakana, need to be set straight.

Cheetah you can reference #47 & 64 all you want. As Posts to clarify these as General Discussion - you have been condescending all along and you have come as close to stating AKD operated outside its limits without saying so. We have all been speaking about "this accident" so making out like this is general discussion time at Group Therapy does not let you off the hook - nor do your comments let Martin's memory off the hook. Example's:

Start with #52 where you give reference that a pilot would call the office. I wouldn't call anyone as lilflyboy said just dump the luggage and let the office sort it out later. Hence the phrase -Pilot In Command - PPL stuff. Does not matter what the office says to me, if I have said "no" the aircraft is not getting airborne until I am happy with it, so speaking to the office is a form of redundancy other than to sort out options. In addition who cares or expects a pat on the back for anything other than Safe & Professional pilot each and every day and even then that is what he/she signed on for so the employer should expect nothing less.

Then there is #90 where you feign midgets all around. Funny; but they do get all sizes there (as most of us do everywhere) and not all Europeans/Americans are obese or worse. Asian's are prone to traveling these days too if we are going to be blatantly stereotypical (and today I feel like it). Therefore the number of people is not the issue their combined weights are and that is what pilot's must deal with the WEIGHT issue; at all airstrips. If that is a problem I hear they are hiring at SPUR. EFATO leaves few options in most bush operations - the pilot needs to make the best of it and if they don't like that go to the airlines and fly seal to seal or get a twin job somewhere (something with some power - not one of those Maun Islander's anyway)

Then #101; condescending or a state the obvious competition. You decide.

1. Yes CAAB would need to approve the Mod for the aircraft or the Operator could not put it on the aircraft. Most of us do not work in the DRC. With
the approval comes the amendment to the POH and none of this would
happen without amended SOP's, (although I am not sure what they are
amending in the aircraft's operation)
2. It is not a hypothetical weight increase of 312 lbs - the Mod
provides the increase so it is, how do they say - REALITY!
3. No it does not allow "him" (wonder who you meant by this) to disregard anything in the POH - Not even those inexperienced and over- managed pilots (#42) are allowed to do that. Part of the responsibility of being a Commercial Pilot (I think).
4. WAT tables do not limit the weight of the aircraft. The PIC does that using
various tools (including the POH and its tables) Good pilots can determine
this pretty accurately by looking at people and their bags but in the end
we should all use the POH. Let us continue to understand who is in charge
of the aircraft


You have implied that on the day with the APE II conversion that with 11 people (probably Midgets) this C208B (not AKD - as this is General Discussion) might have operated out of its window. See ragdragger post.

Now your sensibilities have been hurt because you have been called on it. Well I am sorry for that; anyone else sorry as well?

AKD
 

I have been given an electronic C208B POH and will attempt to present some figures. As asked before does anyone have the Temperature and QNH for the day of the accident?

On another note, Captain Livingston, just wondering - do you think CAAB would allow a re-branding of Moremi Air, after all prior to this they have had 4 other accidents and on the surface their safety mentality seems to raise some questions. Surely someone should be looking at the management of the operation?

If a rebranding of Moremi Air means that the company name is changed in order to conceal an apparently accident filled past history from the public, isn't that the same sort of thing as fraud? It'd go down well with the tourists wouldn't it? The CAA should perhaps be careful before they place themselves in a position where they could be tarnished with that brush? Perhaps it's possible that criminal liability on the part of a government agency could attach to condoning such a deceit? Maybe that's all too American an interpretation but then, as so many of the delta tourists are rich Americans one wouldn't really want that sort of story splashed all over the NYT would one? As for QNH and temperature on the day is it possible that Maun ATC could provide their details for the time spans involved or could one contact the CAA in Gaberone which might be able to provide details from their pending inquiry data portfolio?)
(Edited to ensure freedom from condescension and criticism. Not edited for sarcasm or ironic content.

MOREMI AIR REBRANDING
 

I completely agree with you that re-branding to hide an accident history is dishonesty. The Director's and operating officers of the company (Ops Manager, Chief Pilot, and Safety Officer) are in the hot seat wherever they go after this anyway provided some long term negligence is proved (excluding AKD which sounds a lot like a mechanical); having said that to run a poor operation (management constantly losing aircraft) won't endear them to future employers. I was just wondering if CAAB would allow such a rebranding.

ok, watching from the sidelines, and I'm ignoring politics.
I'm also ignoring for the moment the inflight fire theory.
On the wrong day with the wrong payload it is perfectly possible to get airborne into the wrong side of the drag curve, and you will stay there.
Put enough foliage through what the reverse flow can't handle, you will have flames.
For what it is worth, I have been there in a far more powerful aircraft where all the performance data said it would fly: it did, but for a critical few seconds couldn't quite make up it's mind.
As an observer to this I would advise nobody to push a " it couldn't be that way" scenario until all the facts are on the table.

History in our line of business demonstrates repeatedly that the random sometimes causes the unthinkable.

Teddy, it was never a issue of being overweight. The weight issue was bought forward as it being an issue of not having enough performance in getting out of that strip in the runway available. There is also a escape route to the right of the runway if needed. IE getting behind the drag curve.

As for flying ham's question.
I can remember the temperature of the day was around 32 degrees. Give or take a few degrees. Peak of the day was 36 degrees. It was not that at that time of the day.

The QNH I cannot remember. But a web search shows the QNH of around 1015. It usually drops during the day by one or so each hour after 10am.

My estimate puts the planes weight at 8020lbs. 32 Degrees, say a QNH of around 1011, with approximately 5kts of headwind.
A quick guess would put that at around 680-700m for a 50ft barrier?