Rex Saab 2000
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rex Saab 2000
Hi all,
Was flying Rex over the holidays and noticed a model of a rex saab 2000 in the depature lounge.
I remember quite some time ago Rex were meant to be upgrading the 340 with the 2000.
Im only having a guess here but has that been delayed? if so for how long?
cheers
Was flying Rex over the holidays and noticed a model of a rex saab 2000 in the depature lounge.
I remember quite some time ago Rex were meant to be upgrading the 340 with the 2000.
Im only having a guess here but has that been delayed? if so for how long?
cheers
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rex Saab 2000
Hey Iron Maiden,
Heard the same thing from a mate who had a REX interview recently,which he turned down. He reckons it's a Glorified GA/RPT company. REX sound like a company up here in NT that promises the world on face value but doesn't deliver.
Any one in Rex want to confirm or deny the 2000 or ATR42/72?
PS: heard about the ATR's from the rex interview.
Cheers.
Heard the same thing from a mate who had a REX interview recently,which he turned down. He reckons it's a Glorified GA/RPT company. REX sound like a company up here in NT that promises the world on face value but doesn't deliver.
Any one in Rex want to confirm or deny the 2000 or ATR42/72?
PS: heard about the ATR's from the rex interview.
Cheers.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: AssStrapped2aSAAB340
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt REX will ever see the SAAB 2000, a shame though. LIS, BNA, BHI, AY-SY?
The propaganda machine within REX will probably lead you to believe anything though if they feel it's in THEIR interests.
Higher capacity would seem the way to go in the present pilot market if REX wish to expand - because they are unable to come to terms with the fact that cheap labour to operate their dozens of SAAB 340's is a thing of the 90's.
I think you could also be certain if they do go higher capacity they will think they can pay pilots at almost the same as they pay now
The propaganda machine within REX will probably lead you to believe anything though if they feel it's in THEIR interests.
Higher capacity would seem the way to go in the present pilot market if REX wish to expand - because they are unable to come to terms with the fact that cheap labour to operate their dozens of SAAB 340's is a thing of the 90's.
I think you could also be certain if they do go higher capacity they will think they can pay pilots at almost the same as they pay now
IM.........
If that's the model that's in the Rex arrival area in the Melbourne terminal then I'm buggered if I know it's supposed to be, but it definitely doesn't look like a 2000 to me!
If that's the model that's in the Rex arrival area in the Melbourne terminal then I'm buggered if I know it's supposed to be, but it definitely doesn't look like a 2000 to me!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SIUYA
Thats the one.
low wing, and 8 blade or so prop...
thought that was the 2000?
I do remember seeing a pic of the flight deck ( same pic can be found on the saab website) so thought it was...
if not.. then what are they getting?
Thats the one.
low wing, and 8 blade or so prop...
thought that was the 2000?
I do remember seeing a pic of the flight deck ( same pic can be found on the saab website) so thought it was...
if not.. then what are they getting?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: AssStrapped2aSAAB340
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IM, they are not getting anything they don't already have.
More 340's.
The plane in the Mel dep area was supposed to be a 340... but when the guy ordered it some time ago the supplier said 'you want the big one'? and so a model of the 2000 ended up in the lounge instead of a 340.
To answer your Q, what are they getting? 25 SAAB 340B+, not that there is anything wrong with that. The best gear for MOST of what REX does. Unfortunately it is all based on a Business model where pilot labour is a cheap.
But hey, if we don't group together then regional pilots will still be CHEAP!
More 340's.
The plane in the Mel dep area was supposed to be a 340... but when the guy ordered it some time ago the supplier said 'you want the big one'? and so a model of the 2000 ended up in the lounge instead of a 340.
To answer your Q, what are they getting? 25 SAAB 340B+, not that there is anything wrong with that. The best gear for MOST of what REX does. Unfortunately it is all based on a Business model where pilot labour is a cheap.
But hey, if we don't group together then regional pilots will still be CHEAP!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: DN
Age: 64
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAAB 2000 is a standing joke in REX.
What ain't is that the 25 SAAB 340Bs ordered, stopped production way back in about 1998.
Better reality then OzJet with their 200s.
Could be wrong...
What ain't is that the 25 SAAB 340Bs ordered, stopped production way back in about 1998.
Better reality then OzJet with their 200s.
Could be wrong...
wethereyet said:
Hmmmmmm............I'm not so sure about that. 
In fact, I'd say that they probably ARE going to get something that they don't already have.............. in the form of an airworthiness directive relating to ATA30 Ice*Protection*- Flight in Icing Conditions/Airplane Flight Manual Limitations and Performance*Sections*–*Operating*Limitations,*as a direct result of an incident on January 2, 2006, when a Saab 340B aeroplane encountered icing conditions during en-route climb and departed controlled flight.
The ATSB has investigated three SAAB 340 inflight incing events in the past eight years...............in each, airspeed decayed due to ice accumulation, and two of the events resulted in aerodynamic stall AND the aircraft departing controlled flight!
That's really scary stuff!
See:http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2006/A06_48_51.pdf
So, even if the SAAB 2000 is a standing joke in REX, the aerodynamic stall events of the SAAB340 as a result of ice accumulation definitely shouldn't be!
...they (REX) are not getting anything they don't already have.
In fact, I'd say that they probably ARE going to get something that they don't already have.............. in the form of an airworthiness directive relating to ATA30 Ice*Protection*- Flight in Icing Conditions/Airplane Flight Manual Limitations and Performance*Sections*–*Operating*Limitations,*as a direct result of an incident on January 2, 2006, when a Saab 340B aeroplane encountered icing conditions during en-route climb and departed controlled flight.
The ATSB has investigated three SAAB 340 inflight incing events in the past eight years...............in each, airspeed decayed due to ice accumulation, and two of the events resulted in aerodynamic stall AND the aircraft departing controlled flight!
That's really scary stuff!
See:http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2006/A06_48_51.pdf
So, even if the SAAB 2000 is a standing joke in REX, the aerodynamic stall events of the SAAB340 as a result of ice accumulation definitely shouldn't be!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: DN
Age: 64
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SIUYA
My reference to SAAB 2000 at REX as a standing joke... as it should have been ordered by REX but probably never will.
The icing incident that you refer to that happened over ELW, from my understanding, it was a case of the crew not paying attention.
Again could be awfully wrong..if I am, sorry, to the crew.
My reference to SAAB 2000 at REX as a standing joke... as it should have been ordered by REX but probably never will.
The icing incident that you refer to that happened over ELW, from my understanding, it was a case of the crew not paying attention.
Again could be awfully wrong..if I am, sorry, to the crew.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: AssStrapped2aSAAB340
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both SAAB and REX have implemented procedures that although us drivers of the aircraft know are a little 'over the top', under the currect operating procedures, safety in icing conditions is never compromised.
I will be the first to criticise when it is due... but the SAAB340 does a great job over 80-90% of the REX network.
I will be the first to criticise when it is due... but the SAAB340 does a great job over 80-90% of the REX network.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canberra
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
REX Maint HQ reception in Wagga is resplendent in Posters of cockpits/models of the SAAB 2000, sadly looking very dated.
Perhaps a sign of past aspirations that should be thought of as such?
I should think their management team have enough on their plate addressing their currant Pilot shortage than worry about introducing a new aircraft type.
Perhaps a sign of past aspirations that should be thought of as such?
I should think their management team have enough on their plate addressing their currant Pilot shortage than worry about introducing a new aircraft type.
Gidday wethereyet, spot on on all counts.
REX procedures dictate a minimum airspeed of 160 KIAS when operating the aircraft in icing conditions, and 170 KIAS for holding in said conditions. Also as noted in the AOM, IAS mode is the only vertical mode to be used when climbing in such conditions. The only exception to this is during transets from one speed to another. Nothwithstanding the unpredictabilities of stall margins, and the possibility of little or no stall warning in extreme conditions, if the aircraft in all these scenerios had been operated thus, the upsets would not have occured.
The recomendation by the NTSB to require crews to hand fly the aircraft in icing conditions I'm not so sure about. The autopilot in the SAAB although a generation old is still a beautiful piece of kit. Used properly, it most definitely enhanses the crew's situational awareness, and if operated in the correct modes and speeds would have had no bearing on these events.
The SAAB 2000 is a "furfie". Only 60 + were made. IMHO a fantastic bit of gear (although I admit to never having flown one). They were truely a next generation aircraft and a testiment to the Swedes technical abilities. It was however a commercial failure, which is a shame because it certainly would have suited some REX routes. It is also a relatively dissimilar type that would require a seperate type endorsement, simulator, SOP's, EP's, etc, etc.... This would have meant 2 seperately endorsed pilot groups divided along the lines of aircraft type. Very expensive and a nightmare for crewing, especially in these times. The 340C was on the drawing board when SAAB decided to get out of the small airliner market. Essentially a 340 with all the 2000 gear. Now that would have been a terrific fleet mix. But alas.....
Finally.. "Unfortunately It is all based on a Business model where pilot labour is cheap."
Mate, never a truer word spoken, and I am sad to say, that will ultimately decide the fate of REX.
REX procedures dictate a minimum airspeed of 160 KIAS when operating the aircraft in icing conditions, and 170 KIAS for holding in said conditions. Also as noted in the AOM, IAS mode is the only vertical mode to be used when climbing in such conditions. The only exception to this is during transets from one speed to another. Nothwithstanding the unpredictabilities of stall margins, and the possibility of little or no stall warning in extreme conditions, if the aircraft in all these scenerios had been operated thus, the upsets would not have occured.
The recomendation by the NTSB to require crews to hand fly the aircraft in icing conditions I'm not so sure about. The autopilot in the SAAB although a generation old is still a beautiful piece of kit. Used properly, it most definitely enhanses the crew's situational awareness, and if operated in the correct modes and speeds would have had no bearing on these events.
The SAAB 2000 is a "furfie". Only 60 + were made. IMHO a fantastic bit of gear (although I admit to never having flown one). They were truely a next generation aircraft and a testiment to the Swedes technical abilities. It was however a commercial failure, which is a shame because it certainly would have suited some REX routes. It is also a relatively dissimilar type that would require a seperate type endorsement, simulator, SOP's, EP's, etc, etc.... This would have meant 2 seperately endorsed pilot groups divided along the lines of aircraft type. Very expensive and a nightmare for crewing, especially in these times. The 340C was on the drawing board when SAAB decided to get out of the small airliner market. Essentially a 340 with all the 2000 gear. Now that would have been a terrific fleet mix. But alas.....
Finally.. "Unfortunately It is all based on a Business model where pilot labour is cheap."
Mate, never a truer word spoken, and I am sad to say, that will ultimately decide the fate of REX.
Kev9..........
There were three icing events:
1. VH-LPI at Eildon Weir on 11 November 1998
2. VH-OLM at Bathurst on 28 June 2002
3. VH-KEQ 84 kms southwest of Albury on 18 June 2004.
KRUSTY........
I don't think there's any argument about the SAAB340's autopilot capability (or lack of). What the NTSB is concerned about is that prolongued use of the SAAB340 autopilot during high workload periods, especially when operating in icing conditions, can mask important changes in performance and handling quality (of the aircraft) that can occur.
The January 2006 American Eagle SAAB340 event which is the subject of the NTSB recommendations involved the aircraft being climbed at 165 kts with the autopilot initially engaged in MEDIUM CLIMB mode. Under that condition it appears that the flight control computer would have selected an IAS to provide a medium climb rate at a medium speed.
The NTSB reports the F/O switched the autopilot from MEDIUM CLIMB mode to VS mode after taking control of the aircraft during the climb. The aircraft upset occurred at 130 kts KIAS shortly after the Captain observed the windscreen suddenly going 'opaque' and not long after he'd observed the aicraft, still on autopilot, climbing through 11,000 ft at 165 kts.
THE DFDR record of events shows that airspeed had already decayed to 144 kts about 26 seconds before it stalled. The NTSB noted that '...the incident airplane was exhibiting significant climb performance and control degradations at 144 KIAS, or 5 knots faster than Saab's recommended safe speed in icing conditions.'
The SAAB safe speed for those icing conditions was 139 kts, which was the 126 kts VCLN speed (the 1 'g' stall speed for the actual aircraft weight in the flaps-up configuration) plus the SAAB 13 kts ice accretion 'margin'.
So, even though at 144 kIAS the aircraft was 5 kts above the SAAB 139 KIAS minimum airspeed for icing conditions, it was already experiencing significant performance degradation that went unnoticed by both crew members.
Now, if the aicraft had been climbed in IAS mode then it seems the problem wouldn't have occurred. I'm not too sure what would have happened had the autopilot had been left in MEDIUM CLIMB mode, but I suspect that airspeed would have been maintained at the expense of rate of climb. So, KRUSTY,You appear to have hit the nail on the head very nicely with the statement:
I guess the point that the NTSB's trying to make is that it all seems to be able to turn to SH1T very quickly indeed in icing conditions (particularly in the SAAB??), to such an extent that significant performance changes (eg., a 20+ kt airspeed reduction) can go unnoticed by the crew, and the aircraft can stall as a result.
Hence the recommendation that hand flying may be preferred option under those conditions??
There were three icing events:
1. VH-LPI at Eildon Weir on 11 November 1998
2. VH-OLM at Bathurst on 28 June 2002
3. VH-KEQ 84 kms southwest of Albury on 18 June 2004.
KRUSTY........
I don't think there's any argument about the SAAB340's autopilot capability (or lack of). What the NTSB is concerned about is that prolongued use of the SAAB340 autopilot during high workload periods, especially when operating in icing conditions, can mask important changes in performance and handling quality (of the aircraft) that can occur.
The January 2006 American Eagle SAAB340 event which is the subject of the NTSB recommendations involved the aircraft being climbed at 165 kts with the autopilot initially engaged in MEDIUM CLIMB mode. Under that condition it appears that the flight control computer would have selected an IAS to provide a medium climb rate at a medium speed.
The NTSB reports the F/O switched the autopilot from MEDIUM CLIMB mode to VS mode after taking control of the aircraft during the climb. The aircraft upset occurred at 130 kts KIAS shortly after the Captain observed the windscreen suddenly going 'opaque' and not long after he'd observed the aicraft, still on autopilot, climbing through 11,000 ft at 165 kts.
THE DFDR record of events shows that airspeed had already decayed to 144 kts about 26 seconds before it stalled. The NTSB noted that '...the incident airplane was exhibiting significant climb performance and control degradations at 144 KIAS, or 5 knots faster than Saab's recommended safe speed in icing conditions.'
The SAAB safe speed for those icing conditions was 139 kts, which was the 126 kts VCLN speed (the 1 'g' stall speed for the actual aircraft weight in the flaps-up configuration) plus the SAAB 13 kts ice accretion 'margin'.
So, even though at 144 kIAS the aircraft was 5 kts above the SAAB 139 KIAS minimum airspeed for icing conditions, it was already experiencing significant performance degradation that went unnoticed by both crew members.
Now, if the aicraft had been climbed in IAS mode then it seems the problem wouldn't have occurred. I'm not too sure what would have happened had the autopilot had been left in MEDIUM CLIMB mode, but I suspect that airspeed would have been maintained at the expense of rate of climb. So, KRUSTY,You appear to have hit the nail on the head very nicely with the statement:
Nothwithstanding the unpredictabilities of stall margins, and the possibility of little or no stall warning in extreme conditions, if the aircraft in all these scenerios had been operated thus (in IAS Mode), the upsets would not have occured.
Hence the recommendation that hand flying may be preferred option under those conditions??
Last edited by SIUYA; 5th Jan 2008 at 20:10.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Saab2000 was a commercial failure mainly due to tail problems in production which meant a two year delay in delivery and as a result a cancelled order of 150 aircraft from an american airline. There are now only 62 of them around, most of them spoken for so it seems unlikely REX will be taking them on.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My two cents:
The Saab 340 doesn't like ice. Effects performance badly.
The model at MEL airport was actually one of 5 which were bolted on to the roofs of VW Beetles and driven around cities to promote the newly formed REX not so many years ago. If you squint and use imagination it does look alot like a Saab 2000.
Rumours of the introduction of the Saab 2000 have been around well over 10 years. Its a wish list thing for the pilots. As Krusty listed, not really a viable option. Oh, and by the way, the Saab 2000 doesn't have de-ice boots that operate on "AUTO", you have to contantly press the button!
The Saab 340 doesn't like ice. Effects performance badly.
The model at MEL airport was actually one of 5 which were bolted on to the roofs of VW Beetles and driven around cities to promote the newly formed REX not so many years ago. If you squint and use imagination it does look alot like a Saab 2000.
Rumours of the introduction of the Saab 2000 have been around well over 10 years. Its a wish list thing for the pilots. As Krusty listed, not really a viable option. Oh, and by the way, the Saab 2000 doesn't have de-ice boots that operate on "AUTO", you have to contantly press the button!
That model has been sitting in Melbourne for years.
You should see the models at my current employers head office, the only thing not there is a Concorde.
I think the manufacturers give them away in company colours as part of their promotional efforts with little regard to reality.
Kinda like real estate, cars etc.
You should see the models at my current employers head office, the only thing not there is a Concorde.
I think the manufacturers give them away in company colours as part of their promotional efforts with little regard to reality.
Kinda like real estate, cars etc.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
by the way, the Saab 2000 doesn't have de-ice boots that operate on "AUTO", you have to contantly press the button!
The SAAB Operators Conference held at Clearwater Florida in October 2006 discussed recommendations A-06-48 and A-06-51 arising from the American Eagle SAAB340 event.
Rec A-06-48: Require all operators of Saab SF340 series airplane to instruct pilots to maintain a minimum operating airspeed of 1.45xVs during icing encounters and before entering known or forecast icing conditions and to exit icing conditions as soon as performance degradations prevent the airplane from maintaining 1.45xVs.
Note that the NTSB classified A-06-48 as an URGENT recommendation!
Rec A-06-51: Require all operators of turbopropeller-driven airplanes to instruct pilots, except during intermittent periods of high workload, to disengage the autopilot and fly the airplane manually when operating in icing conditions.
As stated previously, the American Eagle SAAB340 AOM called for a speec of VCLN +15 kts, which in the case of the occurrence flight, would have been VCLN 126 kts + 13 kts = 139 kts. So, with VCLN of 126 kts = 1.2 '1g' VS, the VS in that case would have been 105 kts.
Therefore, the 'icing' encounter speed according to recommendedation A-06-48 should have been 152 kts, or 13 kts greater than the speed given in the American Eagle SAAB340 AOM.
However, it seems there's some difference in opinion between SAAB and the NTSB regarding the icing 'encounter' speed.
While the NTSB are recommending to the FAA that the icing 'encounter' speed should be 1.45 VS, SAAB 'characterize the [American Eagle] event as a low speed event, and is recommending operators to follow speed information and procedures for flight in icing conditions published in the Aircraft Operations Manual.
WOW! That represents about a 9% margin between the NTSB and SAAB recommended speeds!
Under the circumstances, I reckon I know which speed I'd prefer to be flying at!
Rec A-06-48: Require all operators of Saab SF340 series airplane to instruct pilots to maintain a minimum operating airspeed of 1.45xVs during icing encounters and before entering known or forecast icing conditions and to exit icing conditions as soon as performance degradations prevent the airplane from maintaining 1.45xVs.
Note that the NTSB classified A-06-48 as an URGENT recommendation!
Rec A-06-51: Require all operators of turbopropeller-driven airplanes to instruct pilots, except during intermittent periods of high workload, to disengage the autopilot and fly the airplane manually when operating in icing conditions.
As stated previously, the American Eagle SAAB340 AOM called for a speec of VCLN +15 kts, which in the case of the occurrence flight, would have been VCLN 126 kts + 13 kts = 139 kts. So, with VCLN of 126 kts = 1.2 '1g' VS, the VS in that case would have been 105 kts.
Therefore, the 'icing' encounter speed according to recommendedation A-06-48 should have been 152 kts, or 13 kts greater than the speed given in the American Eagle SAAB340 AOM.
However, it seems there's some difference in opinion between SAAB and the NTSB regarding the icing 'encounter' speed.
While the NTSB are recommending to the FAA that the icing 'encounter' speed should be 1.45 VS, SAAB 'characterize the [American Eagle] event as a low speed event, and is recommending operators to follow speed information and procedures for flight in icing conditions published in the Aircraft Operations Manual.
WOW! That represents about a 9% margin between the NTSB and SAAB recommended speeds!
Under the circumstances, I reckon I know which speed I'd prefer to be flying at!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Sydney, NSW Australia
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SIUYA,
What is your point? After the Roselawn ATR-72 accident all turboprop aircraft were required to be re-certified for flight in known icing conditions and these tests identified a deficiency with the ATR and resulted in the need for increased de-ice boot area on the ATR type. Both the Saab 340 and the Saab 2000 passed these tests by a wide margin along with the other turboprop types except the ATR.
Significantly the Roselown accident identified the 'beyond known icing conditions' supercooled water droplet phenomenon, which until that accident was not fully understood by meteorologists and the manufacturers of aircraft ice protection systems. Such information is now incorporated in the flight manuals of transport category turboprop aircraft.
The NTSB investigation of the Americal Eagle incident also identified the aircraft de-icing boots autocycling function was unserviceable on that flight and the aircraft was dispatched under the MEL which required both the manual inflation system to be operative and the crew to manually inflate the boots when in icing conditions. It was reported that up until the time the upset occurred the crew had not operated the boots in the manual mode despite having been flying in known icing conditions.
The American Eagle upset resulted from a combination of lack of adherance to standard operating procedures (proper IAS flight mode for climb in icing conditions to ensure speed control together with proper use of ice protection systems) and poor situational awareness of the circumstances. This combination of circumstances can occur with any aircraft if not correctly managed by the flight crew!!
At the October 2006 Saab operators conference in Florida the Saab Aircraft Chief Pilot (AKE Wargh) led the discussion and review session on flight in icing condition. At the commencement of that session he introduced the REX representative to the other operator representatives and asked REX to address this particular session as they (REX) had standard operating procedures which in Saab's view mitigated against any possibility of an inflight upset associated with flight in icing conditions for the Saab 340 type.
So SIUYA what is your point??
What is your point? After the Roselawn ATR-72 accident all turboprop aircraft were required to be re-certified for flight in known icing conditions and these tests identified a deficiency with the ATR and resulted in the need for increased de-ice boot area on the ATR type. Both the Saab 340 and the Saab 2000 passed these tests by a wide margin along with the other turboprop types except the ATR.
Significantly the Roselown accident identified the 'beyond known icing conditions' supercooled water droplet phenomenon, which until that accident was not fully understood by meteorologists and the manufacturers of aircraft ice protection systems. Such information is now incorporated in the flight manuals of transport category turboprop aircraft.
The NTSB investigation of the Americal Eagle incident also identified the aircraft de-icing boots autocycling function was unserviceable on that flight and the aircraft was dispatched under the MEL which required both the manual inflation system to be operative and the crew to manually inflate the boots when in icing conditions. It was reported that up until the time the upset occurred the crew had not operated the boots in the manual mode despite having been flying in known icing conditions.
The American Eagle upset resulted from a combination of lack of adherance to standard operating procedures (proper IAS flight mode for climb in icing conditions to ensure speed control together with proper use of ice protection systems) and poor situational awareness of the circumstances. This combination of circumstances can occur with any aircraft if not correctly managed by the flight crew!!
At the October 2006 Saab operators conference in Florida the Saab Aircraft Chief Pilot (AKE Wargh) led the discussion and review session on flight in icing condition. At the commencement of that session he introduced the REX representative to the other operator representatives and asked REX to address this particular session as they (REX) had standard operating procedures which in Saab's view mitigated against any possibility of an inflight upset associated with flight in icing conditions for the Saab 340 type.
So SIUYA what is your point??