WAT TABLE CALCULATIONS (please check for accuracy)
 

These are my calculations @40 degrees Centigrade (or below) using the tables provided for a Short Field Technique (with Cargo Pod installed). PA’s of 2000’ & 4000’ are there to shown interpolation and provide variations for the possible PA for the day.

lilflyboy reported to me as approximately 5 knots. Never-the-less I have not included a wind component even though it will reduce the figures below.

PA Gd. Roll/50’ in meters dry/grs Tq <1865 By-pass Gd. Roll/50’ ob

8750 lbs

2000 1910/3400 579/1030 x 1.15 x 1.03 x 1.05 720/1281 m

2500 751/1351 m

2750 771/1386 m

3000’ 2100’/3768’ 636/1142 x 1.15 x 1.03 x 1.05 = 791/1420 m

3500’ 827/1489 m

4000’ 2290’/4135’ 694/1253 x 1.15 x 1.03 x 1.05 = 863/1558 m

8300 lbs

2000 1660/2910 503/882 x 1.15 x 1.03 x 1.05 626/1097 m

2500 657/1154 m

2750 672/1183 m

3000’ 1820’/3210’ 552/973 x 1.15 x 1.03 x 1.05 = 687/1211 m

3500’ 717/1268 m

4000’ 1980’/3510’ 600/1064 x 1.15 x 1.03 x 1.05 = 747/1324 m

8525lbs (between the above figures)


2750’ = 722/1285 m

3000’ = 739/1316 m

3500’ = 772/1379 m


Keep in mind that the aircraft (according to the sources I spoke to ) did not have the APE III conversion and therefore had to be 8500 lbs (or less) on arrival at Xakanaka (Landing weight limit).

As above you add 15% (dry/grass), another 3% in case full Torque was not used, another 5% if the Separator was in by-pass.

This is for a Standard C208B. I could not get a hold of a POH for a Van with the APE II conversion.Someone please check these, but these figures indicate that even a standard Van could get out of this strip easily which is listed at 840 meters usable.

Now down to the W&B I guess.

Gear up for a Promotion
 

On an associated note I have discovered that the pilot involved in my previous post (#62) the one with the "Ostrige mentality" of failing to report a near accident has since been promoted to Safety Officer. Interesting decision making and well done to the company CAAB should love that.:hmm: maybe not!!!!

Wasn't Martin the Ops Manager? I see that they are advertising for a replacement. We must also remember that Martin had resigned at the time of the accident apparently as he was unhappy with the way the company ran its operation. There is only one person that is in a position to change things. The one who tried to cover up the accident in the first place and left it 3 days before pushing out a press release and then only to the British press. She is not the sort of person to take advise from any of her people. I am sure that the Chief Pilot and Safety Officer are just as frustrated as everyone else. Instead of re-branding the owner should ask for a resignation and put a CEO in charge who knows something about air charter operations. I have a feeling that the New Year will see some changes one way or another. I just hope that it is the right way.

ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY lies with the Operations staff
 

Yes Martin was the Operations Manager. But I mentioned "Long Term Negligence". There have been previous Operations staff (Ops Managers and Chief Pilot's) through their other accidents. When the Lawyers get involved and they always do, they are going to be looking at the litany of the accidents the Company had in such a short period of time, and looking very closely at what the company did to stop the bleeding if that is the right phrase. Did they make any attempt to change the way they were doing things or did they just proceed ahead and silence any dissenters that surfaced. Owing to the fact that Martin had resigned over concerns with Operations I would think it was more of "silence the dissenters" type thinking. My understanding is that Moremi Air has gone through a lot of Operations Managers and Chief Pilot's over the past 5 years. That could indicate a reason for concern depending on why these people left. Concerning you comment about the Chief Pilot and Safety Officer being frustrated, well just remember they are ultimately legally responsible for how the operation is conducted, so if they think they can say 'but I was just following orders of the CEO' and they are off the hook - ha, good luck with that one on the legal side. Add my previous posts (#62 and #122). Don’t focus on the mistake but the way it was handled by the individual and then the fact the Company went ahead and put him in charge of Safety - that is the thinking I am talking about. What message is that sending? Now to your other comment - this woman (the 'she' you mentioned) who is the CEO, it sounds like you know more than you are saying. How do you think she attempted to cover this up? Do tell!!

Flying Ham, I can see both, your points, and those of Capt Livingstone. Firstly the CEO is not a 'woman' she is a 'lady'. Regarding liability we need 'Flying Lawyer' but I am not sure if he follows this particular forum. My main involvement with operations was in the military where, if you like, I was 'Ops Manager' for many heavy 4 jets and their crews. The situation there is completely different where the Authorising Officer and the Captain are the first in the firing line. I was only a line pilot in the airlines. I am not 100% sure of the legal responsibilities held by the directors and management of an air charter company.

In Greece we had a passenger ship go down close our location in 2000. Over 80 passengers died. The Chairman of the company threw himself out of his office window on the top floor of their shipping office. He obviously considered himself liable.

On that cheerful note may I wish everyone a happy and successful 2012. Special good wishes to those hoping for jobs here in Maun. I also hope that we get some official feedback very soon about this accident so that Moremi Air can restructure instead of re-branding and get on with their business.

Thanks for the New Years wishes. To your last point, and to be candid, being a woman does not automatically make you a lady :ouch:. I know a lot of men who are not gentlemen and believe that this disposition does cross the gender spectrum. Let's say the Jury is out for now on the lady issue and stick with what she was born as. I am still awaiting Captain Livingston's contribution for any missing puzzle pieces. He/she seems to know this person and I am interested in an objective take on her from his/her end.

It is not possible for a female employed in the transport trade to be anything other than a woman. This was a similar characteristic claimed by a woman, which of course is not the case here, discussed at great length some years ago on these pages. She rose quite high in the echelons of South African aviation reputedly collecting anatomical specimens and reveling in a title that was far above the mediocrity otherwise contained within her patronymic. As for regurgitation or restructuring of an airline, either would appear to risk sailing close hauled to the wind of a cover up. The defenestration of executive officers from high stories, self propelled or otherwise, is probably not the smart option although it might be most gratifyingly pleasant for some to be present both at the airborne departure and at ground arrival on the tarmac.

Shirley exfenestration, yer Catship. Defenestration would imply plucking of the juicy morsel from the orbit.

Ah, the Cat is back. I trust your Catnap over the holiday rested you. I must admit that although thorough, accurate and objective research on your part to substantiate opinions may not be your forte. Your use of a Thesaurus is outstanding. :ok:

Any chance you took the time to check my figures (WAT Tables) and see if there is any accuracy to them?

It was the defenestration of Prague that began the Thirty Years War. That's when a room load of worthies were heaved out of a castle window and so began the first great pan European war 1618-1648.
The 15% required to be added for grass runways relates to the figure extrapolated for TORR. This needs to be added to 50ft obstacle figure determined in order to compensate for the difference between tarmac and grass surfaces. Otherwise the figures seem reasonable enough examples of graphological expertise. One should perhaps decline to speculate how the figures could relate to the accident in question preferring to leave those calculations to the board of inquiry which one presumes is going to convene at some indeterminate stage in the future? As for all this talk of rebranding or restructuring, isn't it the equivalent of a large can of whitewash and a broad brush and hasn't South Africa seen much the same sort of camouflage exercise with one of its own multiple scoring accident airlines recently. The references to that can most assuredly be found on the air links available on the internet. A first class example of the clever use of whitewashing to obtain one's own ends may be had by reference to Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer and the fence job.
Happy New Year to one and all and fireworks all round. The Arab New Year will not take place until November 27th, 2012. 1435AH will also revere the death of Imam Hussein, killed with his family and followers at the battle of Karbala in 680. It's a celebration marked with grief unlike the rather undignified disintegration into alcoholic stupor which marks the Gregorian new year.

One lives and learns...;)

The other definition also holds true, one is reliably informed.

Wouldn't a gravel runway been more accurate than grass? Or even concrete.
Calcrete is bloody hard and offers very little resistance.

The screed, from here,

http://850caravan.com/ftp/AFMS%20PER...REF%20ONLY.pdf

states thus:

2. For operation on a dry, grass runway, increase distance by 15% of the “ground roll” figure.

I suspect it might all be quite academic since Botswana boasts a magnificent number of grass species: approximately 400 species, representing 94 genera have been recorded. This constitutes nearly half of the grasses found in southern Africa. The Cessna POH can hardly be expected to produce ground graphs and friction coefficient tables, including braking, for each type of grass and then one suspects that the figures could be different again depending on whether the grass were long or short, munched by an antelope or trampled by an elephant.

Yes I am aware that Xakanaka airstrip is calcrete. But it certainly is not asphalt and therefore I threw in the 15% increase to be objective and offer the idea that even then Martin could have rolled further - still got airborne (which of course he did) - and not been legally outside his limits.

I am also aware that there are only 2 grass strips in the Delta proper.

Cessna does not differentiate on grass types, so your ravenous grass research whilst much appreciated only serves to muddle the view of the playing field and me thinks that you may spend too much time smoking the stuff. Try to focus, be objective (look it up) , because I am sure you have trouble grasping the concept objectivity and have absolutely no trouble with the concept of 'stirring the pot'.

You keep mentioning for all of us to await the board of inquiry. If that were true this forum would cease to exist or at the very least seek to limit our topic matter. In a previous post you implied that the CAAB could have somehow missed approving AKD's load extender mod but now you are willing to await patiently for the Board of Inquiry perhaps as a method to slate the outcome once it appears in public.

This discussion should continue and you will no doubt participate and continue to dazzle us with your knowledge of Grass and the other area's that constitute essentially useless information in the world of Aviation, but from time to time provide us all with a rye smile.

Most excellently amusing post although I doubt the intention was for it to be entirely that. I would suggest, in the absence of facts, that it is difficult to be anything other than subjective.
Objectivity isn't really a concept but more of a way of looking at something through a series of true and provable facts. One of these facts might be for example, whether any modifications to an aircraft had been approved by any relevant authority.
Until such time as a fact like that were determined, it's really only possible to be subjective which is where this sort of forum seems to get mixed up among those who would like to arrive at a certain objectivity but who can only make determinations of opinion relevant to subjectivity. Therefore it seems pointless to discuss the actual incident any further until sufficient facts have been made available to enable an objective deduction.
It seems logical to assume that only a government board of inquiry would have either the authority or the ability to assemble these facts and present them for the consumption of interested parties or enthusiasts.
As for the rye smile? I think not. Rye grass (Lolium) is a tufted perennial which might be an appropriate description of some of the posts here which are patchy in parts.
The Americans make Rye Whisky and horrid stuff it is too! The smile itself of course should be described as a wry one.
Nonetheless though, a valiant attempt at dry humor and a pun of some excellence under the circumstances much appreciated and acknowledged as such without any overt element of condescension.

CC.
While I love reading your humour... can you use the "enter" key a few more times.
I get a headache and lost everytime I try to read what you write!

That seems a perfectly reasonable request and certainly one that is easier to comply with than always having to highlight and justify. Good luck to you for the new year by the way.

Touche to my last post. Your understanding of the English language knows no bounds

I haven't been on thread for a while but its been fascinating reading all the stuff that has been posted. I have no doubt that Martin would have a LOT to respond to some of the comments posted about him and the incident if he were able to do so...

As for waiting for the final report to come out, I have my personal doubts that it will give a definitive explanation of what really happened. It seems that some questions haven't been asked, and people haven't been talked to, evidence was missed, and some initial reports given by those on site/at the scene/in the air weren't forwarded on to the investigator. Not sure how true all this is, but those of us in Martin's camp are concerned that the full story may not yet be told.

One thing that isn't very clear is what has happened to the engine from the aircraft. Variously reported as having been sent to a 'specialist' operation in SA, left sitting untouched, manufacturer refused access to it for inspection, disassembled before inspection, critical parts missing etc. Can anyone shed any light on where the powerplant is, and what is happening to it.:confused:

Quote:

The screed, from here,

http://850caravan.com/ftp/AFMS%20PER...REF%20ONLY.pdf

states thus:

2. For operation on a dry, grass runway, increase distance by 15% of the “ground roll” figure.


Nice reference from a POH of a caravan equipped with a Honeywell 850HP engine, (unapproved by Cessna I believe?)
as opposed to what AKD, (and all caravans in Botswana) ar equipped with... a Pratt&Whitney 675HP engine!

Good posts otherwise

It's academic, but it's usual for performance figures on grass to be less advantageous than those on tarmac regardless of engines.

See 5-24.3 here.

http://textron.vo.llnwd.net/o25/CES/...aravan_pim.pdf

AKD ENGINE
 

Foxcotte, I have been told by a few in Maun that the Engine once recovered from the bush was left in an open vehicle on the Maun tarmac completely accessable to anyone and everyone that happened by. The engine was not covered nor was it guarded. Evidence in a possible wrongful death left unsecured. Do not know where it is now.

Sorry, not a positive start to the investigation.

This post is a bit of a non-sequitur, because I'm replying to comments made about two months ago, way back on page 4 of the discussion. I'm replying out of the context of this discussion, by that I mean with no reference or prejudice to the unfortunate accident in Botswana.

The Series 400 Twin Otter meets every single one of the requirements you have listed, with the exception of range to do 1,000 miles. The basic aircraft will do 600 miles, or 750 miles if fitted with optional wing tanks.

Viking Air, the manufacturer, has been in business for nearly 40 years, and has been manufacturing parts for de Havilland aircraft - under contract to de Havilland - for at least 20 years. It is by no means a new company. As of today 10 new Series 400 Twin Otters are flying.

Naturally a twin-engine aircraft will be more expensive to purchase and operate than a smaller single engine aircraft. However, a twin engine aircraft - in particular, a twin that has been recently certified in the 'Part 23 commuter' category, with the more stringent regulations applicable to that 10 to 19 seat category - offers considerable advantages and benefits over a single engine aircraft that has only been certified for Part 23, 9 passenger or less operations.

For sake of full disclosure: I work for Viking Air.

You know you are in Africa when........:suspect:

Sorry my first post.

So this could mean that we will never know what happened. I mean if the engine was not properly sucured then would not all the parties involved step back attempt to distance themselves from any responsibility or blame that may be levied? Can a complete investigation actually be undertaken and would it be officially recognised if the above were true?

I now understand the engine is with the manufacturer P&W for examination - at long last. But the reply that said the engine sat at Maun airport uncovered/unprotected would appear to confirm a similar story I heard from someone else. Rumours that not all the engine/key components were recovered in the first place are also gaining substantial credibility. That is seriously worrying for the integrity of the investigation and any subsequent report/finding that may come out of all of this.

I know that this is DIA, but that just isn't good enough. Not for these people involved in this incident, or the country, company and region either. Africa CAN and MUST do better. There are too many questions waiting to be answered, and too many people hurt/angry/confused about this particular crash to be left with doubts and suspicions at the end of it all. Fears that the real story of what happened would not ever be told seem - at the moment - to be ominously justified. Its so heartbreaking and agonising for all the families of the victims. The worst nightmare is an inconclusive report that muddies the waters and no clear responsibility is laid at anyone's door - and leaves all the rumours/gossip avenues open. In the long term I don't think that's in anyone's best interests even if the short term gains seem momentarily attractive.

V1...Ooops. Thanks for your belated feedback and defence of the Twotter. It only came up in this thread because of the then enthusiastic debate as to whether the Caravan is a bush plane or not. I believe that the Caravan is arguably the best bush plane around with the Twin Otter coming in a close second. But this is a debate for another thread...

AKD Engine
 

Sorry folks, one has been away.

All correct, in the rain, by the fire station to be precise. Last heard of in Johannesburg untouched but I am a few weeks out of date on that one. Given the Christmas/New Year break I doubt if there was any progress.

Who is running Moremi Air?
 

Captain Livingston. In your post (#123) you mentioned a 'she' before (the CEO) that does not listen to her people and tried to cover it up. Can you expand on this? Just because she is the boss that does not mean she can operate an air operation any way she chooses and ignore her CAAB approved & appointed operations staff. Her control/input should stop at policy and procedures. Surely she understands this and doesn’t participate in the day to day operations of the company. That must be left to the senior operations staff approved and vetted, otherwise, from my experience they must be close to breaching the terms and conditions of their Air Transport License (ATL).

Flying Ham -like you I am concerned about the typical African 'ways'-no doubt the fact that the engine for AKD was left out in the open in the back of a vehicle without much regard for security doesn't surprise me at all.

Forget about takeoff performance charts and figures- this is all a waste of time. If the Botswana CAA conduct a thorough investigation they will use their own methods and if they don't- well hey ho as they say!

Cavorting Cheetah-dude take some English lessons-seriously! Whenever I read your posts I think you must be on some pretty strong sh*t!!

QUALITY CONTROL
 

Yes I understand Africa. We have similar problems up here. My concern is if this is the way they handle the engine what are they doing with the rest of the evidence in this investigation. What about a full investigation into the company and it's management. I understand that they continue to operate.

CAAB may carry out what they believe to be a complete investigation but that is from their perspective. What my worry is that they probably have the ability to draw on a much wider experience base (NTSB, UKCAA, French CAA maybe), are they doing it or are they trying to run it themselves. That area is a huge tourism spot for the country and no doubt this accident has concerned many.

And I thought we had problems over here with how things got done. So Moremi Air just keeps operating on a daily basis - business as usual? Do they have to undertake any additional Line Checks with the CAA or are they audited more frequently because of their accident history?

Flying Ham: This is a small town and a very close knit flying community. News of the crash was out within minutes. In this situation at least a brief statement should have been made by the company as soon as possible. Also the press should have been informed of hard facts as they emerged with carefully worded press statements. No more no less. A three day news black out and staff informed to make 'no comment' to any enquiry was not the way to deal with this. It would, and did, just lead to some quite ridiculous rumours which still abound.

Moremi Air is business as usual, to a certain degree. They have had many passengers booked who have refused to fly with them and are being forced to sub charter to other companies. Their two associated safari companies are ducking, diving and being a little economical with the truth to force tourists to fly with Moremi Air.

I am not associated with the company but have to be careful not to blow my cover. I do have to say that there are some great people working for them. in the air and on the ground. The problem is at the very top.

As people have stated, Maun is a small community, with an even smaller flying community within it, those who have been there know very well the 'She' CEO in question and those of us who do and have known how she has acted and influenced the Air Operation at Moremi Air over the years are in no doubt about the impact that this has had - the record speaks for itself. Perhaps John Mynhardt will finally come to his senses.

CC you coward. I read it before removed. I was thinking along the same lines but also backed off saying it. I will ask a few discrete questions.

I was not aware of John being on the CAAB board. The thlot plickens. I have never met the gentleman but most speak very highly of him and Janie. As for Sue (not so) Smart - never heard anything good.

For those who wish to see her in action
 

Okay I was not logged on when CC put the original post so I did not get to read it. Now if he just edited to make it a better read fine but if he removed something that he did not take the time to think about before posting doesn't that constitute the do over previously mentioned (#113) and the Grade school mentality. Any chance you could put back these comments or will the coward label stick? I think I know the answer and hope it is incorrect.

CC, my 'coward' comment was tongue in cheek. It would probably have been better if you had just removed it without giving a reason. Or indeed left it there, it was sort of subtle. Actually, I must toast some marshmallows at the next braai :hmm:

Now Flyingharry will be even more curious - meow :E

On a more serious note, does anyone have any more info on the situation with the engine inspection? Or indeed its current location. I haven't seen one of my main sources recently.

That's a hard self appointed moderator who expects someone on a rumour network to keep a record of that which was edited out of a post immediately after posting the dastardly thing, even before anyone had had a chance to complain. Besides and anyway, what is wrong with a grade school mentality and a do over? Have you never failed a segment of an instrument renewal?
I suspect though that the comment had something to do with the Queen of Sheba visiting Uganda and was removed for reasons of historical inaccuracy. There was perhaps something about cooking although cannibalism was not mentioned.

Edited @ 15.20Z. Thank you Capt. That's the way I took it.

Yes I have got second chances at any number of things. But sitting an exam and making a mistake is different from blurting out insults in public, making veiled threats, or offering innuendos about other individuals and then taking it back. Sorry did not know which one of the above it was - because it is not there.

When I resit an exam it is a new test, not something I have withdrawn and then changes the answers. You either know what you want to say and then edit it for readability, or you don't say it. Do not say it and then take it back. This is not a difficult concept and represents what many people measure as a form of public responsibility.

But you do what you want, and how you want. You have a command of the English Language but obviously do not understand the concept of standing behind what you say. If you know you have made an error when posting, make another post correcting it. This shows others that you have a backbone and realize that everyone makes mistakes - even you, your holiness.

I have only this to say and hope that, since it is not there, it will not be taken as a blurted insult, a veiled threat or even an innuendo.