Survey Work Uganda
 

I'm posting this as a result of a query from a friend who works for one of the big UK conservation organisations. He's looking for an aircraft for animal census work in Uganda - 2 or 3 days per month for 13 months. I have a spec, ie AOC operator, high wing, twin engine, pilot experience requirements etc, which I could elaborate on later.
Does anyone have any suggestions? Ac could be based Kenya/Tanzania/Uganda I suppose.

My suggestion would be to realign their spec to remove twin engine and insert turbine. That's asking for trouble I reckon, putting people in a Partialaviator or Islander instead of a nice safe, spacious Caravan.

Agreed AgBi, but I didn't write the spec. They'd have a lot more choice with turnbines too....

Nothing wrong with an islander. Great survey bird. Safe handling at very low speeds. We have one in Zambia that could be flown up and based in Uganda. Would require clearance to stay as 9J though.

The BN2 is a nice aircraft but a hot&high engine failure would be "interesting".
I would feel a lot safer in a C208.

...In which case a hot and high engine failure would be REALLY interesting...:}


I think AirServ still have a DHC6 in the area. F406 should also do the trick.

The traditional aircraft for game counting is a piston Cessna. Low and slow with good visibility for observers is the primary need so high wing is best. A Twotter would do the job but would be seriously more expensive to operate.
The C208 would be a bit on the expensive side but give me a PT6 rather than a piston engine any day.

The BN2 is just the wrong aircraft for hot&high operations. Where the single engine ceiling is underground the remaining engine just gets you to the crash site a tad sooner.

Air Serv Twin Otter.....
 

Better be quick on the Twin Otter as they listed it for sale recently....

Twin Otter DHC-6-300: 1972 Twin Otter DHC-6-300 sn: 347 For Sale

I suggested the 206 because the spec appeared to indicate an interest in safety which, under the circumstances, seemed likely to be based upon the commonly held misconception that "a twin is necessarily safer than a single" which leads to the assumption that light piston twins are therefore safer than a single turbine, or even single pistons which I think the statistics clearly show is not the case. Are not piston twins not right at the top of the accident stats? Personally I'd prefer to be in a simple aeroplane at low level with (probably) a low hours pilot than in a complex fast twin. And from what I saw of accidents in Africa it was the piston twins that featured in most of them...

SRT, agreed, hot and high engine failure in an Islander or similar perf limited single-and-a-half is why I made that post. That would be a daft choice - but easily made by someone with less knowledge of aviation than someone with a bit more.

I agree a Twotter/406 might be better safety wise but against a Caravan I doubt it is much different. Cost would be though.

Personally I'd be using a piston single for cost reasons, followed by a Caravan. Piston twins would be at the very end of my list.

The perils of the tripewriter. I wrote turnbines in my previous post. Obviously turbines do go round but that's not their name.

Thanks for the input chaps. I've had a few PMs, which are helpful. I've forwarded what info (and suggestions about turnbines) to my friend.

AgBi I'm not so sure I'd want to be flown at low level by a low hours pilot. Low hours will often mean a young bloke at the stick. I remember what I was like flying around the UKLFS at 250ft as an overgrown teenager!

Re low hours - no, of course not what you'd choose, but that's what you're quite likely to get especially from local airports in rented light twins and singles. And that being the case, best it's in a simple and relatively undemanding single than a complex piston twin with perhaps less than ideal performance and nasty habits even if you do manage to remain flying after the engine failure. A piston twin is by far the most demanding and potentially hazardous of all the types we've been discussing in the event of an engine failure. The hazard of CFIT is presumably similar over all of them so it is the failure case that counts. And the stats say, "Don't choose to be in a singlepilot twin piston in a donk stops".

There's nothing much wrong with low hours pilots anyway. The operator, his insurers and the local Authority all consider them experienced enough or they wouldn't have the job. Who is the customer, as a non expert in aviation safety to gainsay those three good opinions? I'd be far more concerned to know if he'd been in the flying club til midnight the previous evening, or whether the engines on the piston twin that I couldn't avoid were Lycomings or those fragile geared Continentals - even more so in the tropics where dirty dives from above the turbulence are de-rigeur and shock cooled engines are thus commonplace.

Personally I'd be happy with a C206. Better (safer, bigger) a C208. Going bigger (and $$$) a Twotter. Low and slow is why I'd not choose a C406. Safety is why I'd not consider a piston twin.
Low hour pilots don't worry me too much, they've not had time to get complacent, jaded, gung-ho or develop bad habits like some of the older ones. Not always of course, but it's a consideration.

Is that reasonable?

206 Goma....
 

The national parks service have a C206 based in Goma flown by an expat pilot last I heard......you may be able to rent it for a few days a month if they change their mind about using a single engine plane!

If your doing survey work at 300ft. You are not really worried about hot and high. Other than fuel the loads on survey is generally light. Give me the twin over the van. Van burns to much fuel to be cost effective to stay around for only 2 or 3 days a month flying.

Presume the friend knows what fuel is available.

Go with the Twotter. Islander is a piece of crap. Turbine Aero Commander could be a decent compromise. Anybody ever repair Twigg’s blue bomber?

tried with pilatus porter you can land everywhere then with underwing tank you can have 7 hours in air