10 killed in Caravan crash
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: out of a suitcase
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Windsor weather at the time said light freezing drizzle. That is generally accepted in that operation as being acceptable for departure (as long as the wing is clean). Anything worse, like freezing drizzle or freezing rain is a no go. So technically, he would appear to be legal in that respect.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Montreal
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've done a good bit of time on both the PC12 and the Caravan. I myself have yet to hear of a case where a simple engine failure ended in fatality. As of the time that I last flew the Van (in 2000) there had never been an engine failure that wasn't caused by the pilot either failing to gas up or failing to ensure the oil was up and the dipstick secure. The PC12 has had a few engine failures, but the fatalities have not been related to those (please correct me if I'm wrong).
The reason nobody is dying due to the engine failures is that both of those aircraft are built like tanks. The crash in Newfoundland had an impact 40-50kts faster than it needed to be and there were still no fatalities. Of course the pilot should have never left home with the oil problem, and then maintained glide speed (and altitude) and a few other things, but that's another story. The only way to end up dead in one of those singles after a simple engine failure is if you break out of the clouds at 50' straight into a rock, or right into a lake. I suppose there is always bad luck though.....
No, the problem with the big singles is not generally the single engine factor, but the single pilot. A huge proportion of the fatal crashes of these aircraft are CFIT or pilot decision problems, and almost always single pilot. I for one will gladly take a trained kid with 200hrs over the second engine. Given a proper S.O.P and a corporate attitude that fosters a good crew, the majority of these crashes wouldn't happen.
I won't surmise what actually caused this recent crash, but regardless of the actual cause, I think some serious questions must be asked about this accident flight
1) Why was there only one pilot with a full load of paying passengers in IFR weather?
2)Why didn't this company ground the flight in light of what was clearly some serious icing in the area? Several other pilots in the area had parked themselves already that day. I've taken Caravans off-strip and done a whole lot of things that readers of this forum might think a bit nuts with one, but tangling with ice is not something I would purposely do in a caravan. I would never knowingly accept freezing drizzle of any intensityas suitable for a caravan. The carrier in question has lost two other caravans to icing. One of them was flown by a good friend, who luckily survived with three crushed Vertebrae and a bunch of stitches. Even at the time of his crash, he stated that the company would never question a pilot's decision not to go, but they would basically never stop the flight themselves. He went-- and got caught. They of course pushed him out the door afterwards to the unemployment line.
3)Was the accident flight operating over water (or in this case thin ice) at an altitude that would allow a safe glide to shore? Were there life vests, etc. aboard? The pictures show a search happening a looonnnng ways from shore. In flight breakup/mechanical failure is certainly a good possibility at this time, which might explain why the aircraft ended up where it did, but I would seriously question how it got so far from shore unless he was at a considerable altitude.
Truly another sad day in aviation. Having been caught twice in unforecast icing in a Caravan, and having been lucky (luck and nothing else) enough to escape a few other situations whilst flying single pilot IFR, I know that there is nothing more lonely than sitting there by yourself waiting for fate to take its course. That feeling comes right back to the pit of my stomach when I read of these types of accidents. I know the sadness that the families and loved ones are feeling, but I also can't help being angered at the fact that the pilot ended up in the above circumstances (even if they turn out to be irrelavent to the crash) when there was no need. He should have never been where he was, when he was there, and by himself. The system is to blame for that.
The reason nobody is dying due to the engine failures is that both of those aircraft are built like tanks. The crash in Newfoundland had an impact 40-50kts faster than it needed to be and there were still no fatalities. Of course the pilot should have never left home with the oil problem, and then maintained glide speed (and altitude) and a few other things, but that's another story. The only way to end up dead in one of those singles after a simple engine failure is if you break out of the clouds at 50' straight into a rock, or right into a lake. I suppose there is always bad luck though.....
No, the problem with the big singles is not generally the single engine factor, but the single pilot. A huge proportion of the fatal crashes of these aircraft are CFIT or pilot decision problems, and almost always single pilot. I for one will gladly take a trained kid with 200hrs over the second engine. Given a proper S.O.P and a corporate attitude that fosters a good crew, the majority of these crashes wouldn't happen.
I won't surmise what actually caused this recent crash, but regardless of the actual cause, I think some serious questions must be asked about this accident flight
1) Why was there only one pilot with a full load of paying passengers in IFR weather?
2)Why didn't this company ground the flight in light of what was clearly some serious icing in the area? Several other pilots in the area had parked themselves already that day. I've taken Caravans off-strip and done a whole lot of things that readers of this forum might think a bit nuts with one, but tangling with ice is not something I would purposely do in a caravan. I would never knowingly accept freezing drizzle of any intensityas suitable for a caravan. The carrier in question has lost two other caravans to icing. One of them was flown by a good friend, who luckily survived with three crushed Vertebrae and a bunch of stitches. Even at the time of his crash, he stated that the company would never question a pilot's decision not to go, but they would basically never stop the flight themselves. He went-- and got caught. They of course pushed him out the door afterwards to the unemployment line.
3)Was the accident flight operating over water (or in this case thin ice) at an altitude that would allow a safe glide to shore? Were there life vests, etc. aboard? The pictures show a search happening a looonnnng ways from shore. In flight breakup/mechanical failure is certainly a good possibility at this time, which might explain why the aircraft ended up where it did, but I would seriously question how it got so far from shore unless he was at a considerable altitude.
Truly another sad day in aviation. Having been caught twice in unforecast icing in a Caravan, and having been lucky (luck and nothing else) enough to escape a few other situations whilst flying single pilot IFR, I know that there is nothing more lonely than sitting there by yourself waiting for fate to take its course. That feeling comes right back to the pit of my stomach when I read of these types of accidents. I know the sadness that the families and loved ones are feeling, but I also can't help being angered at the fact that the pilot ended up in the above circumstances (even if they turn out to be irrelavent to the crash) when there was no need. He should have never been where he was, when he was there, and by himself. The system is to blame for that.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Elliot M. :
I read that the airplane was about one km off shore.
I used to fly that run many years ago and if he took off westbound it would not take long to travel one km.
I still would like to know what his last transmission was, the news media claim that ATC picked up his transmission.
One thing for sure this is the most dreadful accident with a single engine turbine that I know about,,,
We can only hope and pray it was mechanical failure..
One cannot express the grief that these events bring.
Chuck
I read that the airplane was about one km off shore.
I used to fly that run many years ago and if he took off westbound it would not take long to travel one km.
I still would like to know what his last transmission was, the news media claim that ATC picked up his transmission.
One thing for sure this is the most dreadful accident with a single engine turbine that I know about,,,
We can only hope and pray it was mechanical failure..
One cannot express the grief that these events bring.
Chuck
Just a note to commend the other contributors to this thread. So far, no classic attacks or defensive counter-assaults seem to have been made on anyone; mighty tame for Pprune. Maybe this is premature.
Just a question about the various PT-6 engines' autofeather operation. I flew some (Emb-110) 'Bandits' and Shorts 330/360s, all of which had a very reliable PT-6 autofeather system, and we certainly don't know if there was an engine problem onboard the plane in this recent tragedy.
Someone told me several years ago that a Caravan in Alaska suffered an engine failure and the prop did NOT autofeather-the pilot supposedly had to push the nose almost straight down to keep the plane above minimum airspeed, due to the prop's huge drag. The guy was said to have ditched and survived. Is this story true? If so, what a superb recovery and ditching with little warning! Were mistakes made during maintenance on the propellor up in Alaska?
Were I to fly a turboprop again one day, it would be my wish to fly a DeHavilland with PT-6 engines.
Just a question about the various PT-6 engines' autofeather operation. I flew some (Emb-110) 'Bandits' and Shorts 330/360s, all of which had a very reliable PT-6 autofeather system, and we certainly don't know if there was an engine problem onboard the plane in this recent tragedy.
Someone told me several years ago that a Caravan in Alaska suffered an engine failure and the prop did NOT autofeather-the pilot supposedly had to push the nose almost straight down to keep the plane above minimum airspeed, due to the prop's huge drag. The guy was said to have ditched and survived. Is this story true? If so, what a superb recovery and ditching with little warning! Were mistakes made during maintenance on the propellor up in Alaska?
Were I to fly a turboprop again one day, it would be my wish to fly a DeHavilland with PT-6 engines.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 21st Jan 2004 at 12:18.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I flew the Caravan for 2 yrs and don't seem to remember it having an autofeather. It was about 5yrs ago so maybe someone a bit more current can confirm this.
I thought it was a great plane to fly although I have to agree with the earlier comment about not flying it in any kind of freezing precip (rain, drizzle) It would handle a bit of ice but you had to know the limits of the aircraft. When I was at Flight Safety I met a grizzly old guy who's instructions on using the deice were to wait till you had lost 10 knots then blow the boots and you'll get 8 knots back. You can see that eventually you're going to be out of knots!!! Where I flew we always had a portable deicing pack that we used to get rid of any ice that was left over from the flight in or that had accumulated while on the ground. It was simply a big garden sprayer that had glycol in it. Very simple but effective. A real godsend when operating into the remote communities that we frequented.
I think one of the biggest problems with the C-208 is that its quite often a pilots first IFR captain seat and quite often single pilot at that. This usually brings a lower experience level. There is alot of pressure to get the job done and unfortunately when you are a little green and in command for the first time you don't always have the confidence to say no. Its sad but its true.
My condolences to those that lost a loved one.
I thought it was a great plane to fly although I have to agree with the earlier comment about not flying it in any kind of freezing precip (rain, drizzle) It would handle a bit of ice but you had to know the limits of the aircraft. When I was at Flight Safety I met a grizzly old guy who's instructions on using the deice were to wait till you had lost 10 knots then blow the boots and you'll get 8 knots back. You can see that eventually you're going to be out of knots!!! Where I flew we always had a portable deicing pack that we used to get rid of any ice that was left over from the flight in or that had accumulated while on the ground. It was simply a big garden sprayer that had glycol in it. Very simple but effective. A real godsend when operating into the remote communities that we frequented.
I think one of the biggest problems with the C-208 is that its quite often a pilots first IFR captain seat and quite often single pilot at that. This usually brings a lower experience level. There is alot of pressure to get the job done and unfortunately when you are a little green and in command for the first time you don't always have the confidence to say no. Its sad but its true.
My condolences to those that lost a loved one.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Autofeather, etc.
Autofeather a la DHC-6 works by comparing the torque on two engines, doesn't it? So there's no way you could fit that to a single. There must be a specific drill for engine failure on a C-208 that has one feathering the prop after an engine failure. The risk associated with autofeather is that it might throw a wobbly and feather a perfectly good engine. That's why we only use it for takeoff. It's not a magic pill.
I try to always have my glide speed or Vx in mind, so that when that evil swine at the back of the sim slips in a total loss of power I have a snappy come-back while I figure out what to do next. But in real life there are places you could do everything right and still end up dead, either from the crash impact or else from exposure. There I just wouldn't want to be in a single if I had the choice of a twin.
There was a crash of a Piper Tomahawk down in the Carolinas a long time ago now, when they lost their magnetos at night over the piney woods. The pilot, an instructor, did everything right within the limited options available but both occupants died when they hit the trees.
Under normal conditions in much of the world if you end up in the water without a survival suit all that a life jacket will do is assist in the recovery of your corpse, unless you are extremely lucky. Check out what happened after the Air Florida crash, right in the middle of a major American city, when people ended up in the Potomac River. In winter you have a couple of minutes, max, before your body stops obeying your commands, not much time at all.
I had a job once flying what one could fairly call junk airplanes. Sad old Travel Airs (160 h.p. per engine) loaded up with four big, fat Bahamian market ladies going out of Miami on a hot afternoon with all their shopping back to Freeport. The rate of climb on two engines could have been measured with a calendar, so that if I had lost one I wouldn't have had many options. There I would have been just ever so happy to have been given a C-208 instead, I suppose. They hadn't been invented yet, plus they cost serious money relative to a clapped out Travel Air.
But then I would get these runs at night from Great Inagua back to Miami over about 400 miles of water, mostly. The so-called Bermuda Triangle, where it's quite easy to vanish without a trace. No little green men, just lots and lots of water and very few bits of dry land. Then I wanted two engines, minimum.
The thing about the Navajo is that it's often a rather tired, not all that easy-to-fly airplane flown by a low-time crew. A recipe for accidents, yes? I remember a typical accident, where the pilot lost one engine early in the takeoff roll and continued down a long runway until he lost control due to Vmc, trying to make it fly on one engine. Doh! (That was when the FAA changed the rules to require ATP licenses for air taxi pilots. After that we started having a much better class of accident, I guess.)
I guess the thing is, as a pilot, you have to take the risks as part of the cost of joining the club. The real problem is that the passengers often naively expect that boarding some little bug smasher piloted by a pimply kid on a day that the birds are all walking is just as safe as flying with a major airline. Well, thanks to the magic of 'code-sharing' sometimes they expect the major airline and get the bug smasher! Then, when the inevitable happens, flocks of lawyers descend to profess themselves shocked, just shocked by what they find about the risks their innocent clients were exposed to.
I try to always have my glide speed or Vx in mind, so that when that evil swine at the back of the sim slips in a total loss of power I have a snappy come-back while I figure out what to do next. But in real life there are places you could do everything right and still end up dead, either from the crash impact or else from exposure. There I just wouldn't want to be in a single if I had the choice of a twin.
There was a crash of a Piper Tomahawk down in the Carolinas a long time ago now, when they lost their magnetos at night over the piney woods. The pilot, an instructor, did everything right within the limited options available but both occupants died when they hit the trees.
Under normal conditions in much of the world if you end up in the water without a survival suit all that a life jacket will do is assist in the recovery of your corpse, unless you are extremely lucky. Check out what happened after the Air Florida crash, right in the middle of a major American city, when people ended up in the Potomac River. In winter you have a couple of minutes, max, before your body stops obeying your commands, not much time at all.
I had a job once flying what one could fairly call junk airplanes. Sad old Travel Airs (160 h.p. per engine) loaded up with four big, fat Bahamian market ladies going out of Miami on a hot afternoon with all their shopping back to Freeport. The rate of climb on two engines could have been measured with a calendar, so that if I had lost one I wouldn't have had many options. There I would have been just ever so happy to have been given a C-208 instead, I suppose. They hadn't been invented yet, plus they cost serious money relative to a clapped out Travel Air.
But then I would get these runs at night from Great Inagua back to Miami over about 400 miles of water, mostly. The so-called Bermuda Triangle, where it's quite easy to vanish without a trace. No little green men, just lots and lots of water and very few bits of dry land. Then I wanted two engines, minimum.
The thing about the Navajo is that it's often a rather tired, not all that easy-to-fly airplane flown by a low-time crew. A recipe for accidents, yes? I remember a typical accident, where the pilot lost one engine early in the takeoff roll and continued down a long runway until he lost control due to Vmc, trying to make it fly on one engine. Doh! (That was when the FAA changed the rules to require ATP licenses for air taxi pilots. After that we started having a much better class of accident, I guess.)
I guess the thing is, as a pilot, you have to take the risks as part of the cost of joining the club. The real problem is that the passengers often naively expect that boarding some little bug smasher piloted by a pimply kid on a day that the birds are all walking is just as safe as flying with a major airline. Well, thanks to the magic of 'code-sharing' sometimes they expect the major airline and get the bug smasher! Then, when the inevitable happens, flocks of lawyers descend to profess themselves shocked, just shocked by what they find about the risks their innocent clients were exposed to.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chuks said "Autofeather a la DHC-6 works by comparing the torque on two engines, doesn't it? So there's no way you could fit that to a single."
Actually, the autofeather for the DHC-6 works by sensing oil pressure via a pressure switch. Once the autofeather is armed, if Torque of either engine drops below 11 psi (for 2 seconds if the 2 sec delay mod is installed), the propeller feathers.
Actually, the autofeather for the DHC-6 works by sensing oil pressure via a pressure switch. Once the autofeather is armed, if Torque of either engine drops below 11 psi (for 2 seconds if the 2 sec delay mod is installed), the propeller feathers.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lake Erie crash recovery operation suspended
By DARREN YOURK
Globe and Mail Update
The Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker Samuel Risley has returned to port after bad weather forced officials to temporarily suspend the recovery of the wreckage from a plane crash in Lake Erie.
Blowing show and high winds early Thursday sent the Samuel Risley back to Kingsville, Ont., to get fresh supplies and wait out the weather. Police said the ship could be back out to the site later Thursday, and the search will resume Friday morning if weather allows.
The ship has been surveying the site all week with a camera mounted on a remote-controlled sled. An OPP dive team is aboard, waiting to dive and survey the crash scene before deciding how to proceed.
Officials have warned that the preparation for a recovery operation of this size could take days or even weeks.
The bodies of the 10 victims — eight of whom were close friends from southwestern Ontario heading home from a hunting trip on Pelee Island — remain submerged 7.5 metres under the lake's surface.
The Cessna Caravan 208B carrying the 10 passengers crashed into Lake Erie's frigid waters about 4:40 p.m. Saturday afternoon, less than a kilometre after takeoff from an airstrip on the Island. The flight was bound for Windsor.
The Federal Transportation Safety Board announced Thursday afternoon it has suspended the Air Operator Certificate of Georgian Express airlines, the company that was operating the plane.
"The decision to suspend the Air Operator Certificate was based on the review of the company's documentation and the department's assessment of the preliminary information," a release said.
"The department will continue to work with the Georgian Express Ltd. The company will be required to demonstrate that they meet all applicable rules and regulations before its Air Operator Certificate will be re-issued."
By DARREN YOURK
Globe and Mail Update
The Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker Samuel Risley has returned to port after bad weather forced officials to temporarily suspend the recovery of the wreckage from a plane crash in Lake Erie.
Blowing show and high winds early Thursday sent the Samuel Risley back to Kingsville, Ont., to get fresh supplies and wait out the weather. Police said the ship could be back out to the site later Thursday, and the search will resume Friday morning if weather allows.
The ship has been surveying the site all week with a camera mounted on a remote-controlled sled. An OPP dive team is aboard, waiting to dive and survey the crash scene before deciding how to proceed.
Officials have warned that the preparation for a recovery operation of this size could take days or even weeks.
The bodies of the 10 victims — eight of whom were close friends from southwestern Ontario heading home from a hunting trip on Pelee Island — remain submerged 7.5 metres under the lake's surface.
The Cessna Caravan 208B carrying the 10 passengers crashed into Lake Erie's frigid waters about 4:40 p.m. Saturday afternoon, less than a kilometre after takeoff from an airstrip on the Island. The flight was bound for Windsor.
The Federal Transportation Safety Board announced Thursday afternoon it has suspended the Air Operator Certificate of Georgian Express airlines, the company that was operating the plane.
"The decision to suspend the Air Operator Certificate was based on the review of the company's documentation and the department's assessment of the preliminary information," a release said.
"The department will continue to work with the Georgian Express Ltd. The company will be required to demonstrate that they meet all applicable rules and regulations before its Air Operator Certificate will be re-issued."
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The Federal Transportation Safety Board announced Thursday afternoon it has suspended the Air Operator Certificate of Georgian Express airlines, the company that was operating the plane."
That sounds a bit strange. The Safety Board should be investigating the accident; the Department of Transport normally issues and takes away AOCs.
That sounds a bit strange. The Safety Board should be investigating the accident; the Department of Transport normally issues and takes away AOCs.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Canada
Age: 68
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: TSB vs TC....I suspect it is a case of the usual muck up by journalists.
TC issues and suspends OC's. They are the regulator. TSB's mandate is to figure out what happened and make recommendations (if any) accordingly.
TC issues and suspends OC's. They are the regulator. TSB's mandate is to figure out what happened and make recommendations (if any) accordingly.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Transport Canada suspends OC
LNAV, 604
You guys are correct. In the print edition of this morning's Globe & Mail the reporter did mention Transport Canada as the suspending authority. Unfortunately, the article is not online when I checked a few minutes ago but is at A5 in today's paper.
You guys are correct. In the print edition of this morning's Globe & Mail the reporter did mention Transport Canada as the suspending authority. Unfortunately, the article is not online when I checked a few minutes ago but is at A5 in today's paper.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: canada
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So are the 1900s grounded too, or just the Caravans??
Elliot Moose....how ya doing? Still teaching sim?...by the way, I have a documented case of an engine failure in a Caravan before year 2000...I had an engine failure in one...thank God I was still on the ground! The mechanics said that it was due to a frozen P3 line.....As I remember, it was 200' overcast that day...lucky me!
Elliot Moose....how ya doing? Still teaching sim?...by the way, I have a documented case of an engine failure in a Caravan before year 2000...I had an engine failure in one...thank God I was still on the ground! The mechanics said that it was due to a frozen P3 line.....As I remember, it was 200' overcast that day...lucky me!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Africa
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PT6 autofeather
The prop on a PT6 engine is controlled by oil pressure from the engine driven gearbox oil pump. If the engine flames out and rpm decays the pump no longer supplies enough pressure to keep the prop fined off in the flight/ground range and it will run to the feather position (or almost all the way). This takes a few seconds longer than manual/auto feathering but it will happen.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cessna 208 flaws?
London Free Press
Aircraft maker 'aware of flaws'
A U.S. lawsuit raises concerns about a Cessna model similar to one that crashed off Pelee Island.
JONATHAN SHER, Free Press Reporter 2004-01-24 03:32:38
The manufacturer of the plane that crashed last weekend into Lake Erie knew for years that model had flaws that made it dangerously susceptible to ice, says a lawsuit filed against Cessna Aircraft Co. The presence of freezing rain last Saturday about the time of takeoff of the Cessna 208B Caravan is being investigated by Canadian authorities. The crash killed 10 people.
Cessna has known since the 1990s there was a defect in the design or manufacturing of its 208B Caravan that made it prone to icing, the suit claims.
The lawsuit was filed after that model crashed Oct. 10, 2001, in Alaska. That crash killed all 10 on board.
"Cessna appointed a special committee to study this precise problem and conducted additional testing," reads the legal claim, obtained by The Free Press.
Tests showed the plane was prone to stall after a "minor" amount of ice got on the wings and tail, the suit contends.
Despite discovering the flaw, Cessna marketed the Caravan for cold climates and failed to warn operators of the defect, the suit claims.
The lawsuit contains allegations that have not yet been proven in court.
Cessna spokesperson Jessica Myers wouldn't comment yesterday on pending litigation or the claim Caravans were especially vulnerable to ice.
But Myers did say the plane was durable, reliable and capable of carrying large loads in all types of weather. "It's kind of the SUV of the sky."
The Alaska crash bears striking resemblance to the one last Saturday that killed 10 people just off Pelee Island.
Both planes crashed moments after takeoff. Both were piloted by men who had flown four years for their airlines. Both led investigators to examine if ice built up on the wings, and if a buildup caused the crashes.
The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board concluded one year ago that undetected ice caused the Alaskan crash.
That ice wouldn't have been easily visible from the ground because the wings are placed high on the plane, investigators said in their final report.
Cessna is also defending a second lawsuit filed after four perished in a Caravan that crashed mid-flight in Nov. 8, 2002, in Arizona. The claim was filed in October 2003 by the family of the pilot, who was killed.
While the U.S. safety board hasn't finished its investigation, its early findings suggest icing played a critical role.
On Thursday, Transport Canada suspended the licence of the airline that operated the Caravan in the Pelee crash -- Georgian Express, based in Mississauga.
Efforts to recover the bodies of the victims of the Pelee crash as well as the plane were hampered yesterday by poor weather. High winds and blowing snow made conditions too dangerous to use a helicopter, needed to ensure the safety of the divers.
Aircraft maker 'aware of flaws'
A U.S. lawsuit raises concerns about a Cessna model similar to one that crashed off Pelee Island.
JONATHAN SHER, Free Press Reporter 2004-01-24 03:32:38
The manufacturer of the plane that crashed last weekend into Lake Erie knew for years that model had flaws that made it dangerously susceptible to ice, says a lawsuit filed against Cessna Aircraft Co. The presence of freezing rain last Saturday about the time of takeoff of the Cessna 208B Caravan is being investigated by Canadian authorities. The crash killed 10 people.
Cessna has known since the 1990s there was a defect in the design or manufacturing of its 208B Caravan that made it prone to icing, the suit claims.
The lawsuit was filed after that model crashed Oct. 10, 2001, in Alaska. That crash killed all 10 on board.
"Cessna appointed a special committee to study this precise problem and conducted additional testing," reads the legal claim, obtained by The Free Press.
Tests showed the plane was prone to stall after a "minor" amount of ice got on the wings and tail, the suit contends.
Despite discovering the flaw, Cessna marketed the Caravan for cold climates and failed to warn operators of the defect, the suit claims.
The lawsuit contains allegations that have not yet been proven in court.
Cessna spokesperson Jessica Myers wouldn't comment yesterday on pending litigation or the claim Caravans were especially vulnerable to ice.
But Myers did say the plane was durable, reliable and capable of carrying large loads in all types of weather. "It's kind of the SUV of the sky."
The Alaska crash bears striking resemblance to the one last Saturday that killed 10 people just off Pelee Island.
Both planes crashed moments after takeoff. Both were piloted by men who had flown four years for their airlines. Both led investigators to examine if ice built up on the wings, and if a buildup caused the crashes.
The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board concluded one year ago that undetected ice caused the Alaskan crash.
That ice wouldn't have been easily visible from the ground because the wings are placed high on the plane, investigators said in their final report.
Cessna is also defending a second lawsuit filed after four perished in a Caravan that crashed mid-flight in Nov. 8, 2002, in Arizona. The claim was filed in October 2003 by the family of the pilot, who was killed.
While the U.S. safety board hasn't finished its investigation, its early findings suggest icing played a critical role.
On Thursday, Transport Canada suspended the licence of the airline that operated the Caravan in the Pelee crash -- Georgian Express, based in Mississauga.
Efforts to recover the bodies of the victims of the Pelee crash as well as the plane were hampered yesterday by poor weather. High winds and blowing snow made conditions too dangerous to use a helicopter, needed to ensure the safety of the divers.
Rotornut's posting of the LFP article has "nanny state" bells ringing in my ears.
Cessna's being sued because it builds a high-wing, single-engine aircraft that's commercially succesful because, like a Mercedes Sprinter van, it's the right size for the market, a flexible, tough and reliable workhorse. Those very same qualities are what put the aircraft in the line of danger, in that workhorses are always more likely to be pushed slightly beyond their limits.
Its shortcomings, if you can call the tendency of a slow-flying box to accumulate whatever ice is around during its normal flight profile, are known throughout the industry.
What, really, is the difference between taking a Cherokee or a Caravan into marginal icing conditions? The fact that there are eight pax vs three pressing to get home and saying "hell, let's at least give it a try"? The greater likelihood that the aircraft's being operated by a company a step up from air-taxi and aspiring to higher things?
It's down to the operator, and the pilot on Pellis Island, isn't it? I realise the suit Rotornut posted has nothing to do with this particular case and that it's early days to speculate about what the families of this acccident could be contemplating. But I'm sure anyone who reads the LFP article will have made the connection.
Sueing the aircraft manufacturer for its product not being up to flying perfectly in all conditions is simply ridiculous.
Cessna's being sued because it builds a high-wing, single-engine aircraft that's commercially succesful because, like a Mercedes Sprinter van, it's the right size for the market, a flexible, tough and reliable workhorse. Those very same qualities are what put the aircraft in the line of danger, in that workhorses are always more likely to be pushed slightly beyond their limits.
Its shortcomings, if you can call the tendency of a slow-flying box to accumulate whatever ice is around during its normal flight profile, are known throughout the industry.
What, really, is the difference between taking a Cherokee or a Caravan into marginal icing conditions? The fact that there are eight pax vs three pressing to get home and saying "hell, let's at least give it a try"? The greater likelihood that the aircraft's being operated by a company a step up from air-taxi and aspiring to higher things?
It's down to the operator, and the pilot on Pellis Island, isn't it? I realise the suit Rotornut posted has nothing to do with this particular case and that it's early days to speculate about what the families of this acccident could be contemplating. But I'm sure anyone who reads the LFP article will have made the connection.
Sueing the aircraft manufacturer for its product not being up to flying perfectly in all conditions is simply ridiculous.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sueing the aircraft manufacturer for its product not being up to flying perfectly in all conditions is simply ridiculous
I've always heard that one quoted as why the US light aviation industry effectively died.
Timothy
ex-Tanker
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Freezing rain
Some of the posts above show some confusion about freezing rain.
To be sure, it is a killer. Why?
True freezing rain, as opposed to normal rain freezing on cold ground/surfaces forms when a winter warm front drops rain through the cold - below zero wedge of air below. Then super cooled droplets form - still water although below zero degrees. The environment is then filled with these highly unstable droplets - waiting only for the slightest vibration (your aircraft is more than is needed) to turn them into solid ice.
When a wing hits freezing rain, the drops start to run back across the surface, freezing as they go. The next drops follow and pretty soon you have a tenacious thick layer of ice.
This is why most airlines forbid take-off in freezing rain and why any HOT (hold over table) quoting a time for freezing rain is highly unreliable.
Anti icing systems vary - thermal ones often cannot cope in the take-off phase. Boots have the following effect:
If the boots are running when entering freezing rain, the droplets still freeze and run back along the surface. As the ice becomes thicker, a tube of ice develops around the maximum radius of the boots. You can run them all day after that but they are powerless to remove the tube.
If, despite the warnings to AVOID freezing rain, you find yourself flying in it, then you have to allow ice to begin to build BEFORE operating the boots. Then the boots can crack the layer away. the boots have to be deactivated and the process repeated. Obviously not a recommended scenario.
The ice doesn't only form on the wings - it will attack your prop, any intakes and sensors and cover your windshield pronto. All the aircraft's defences are at or beyond their limits in the severest cases.
So to those of you who are already familiar with this phenomenon, excuse the post and move on. Those who are not - be very respectful of freezing rain, freezing drizzle or heavy wet snow falls. All these scenarios have super cooled water in the game.
Lastly, this is a general note and in no way intended to be speculation on the cause of this sad crash.
To be sure, it is a killer. Why?
True freezing rain, as opposed to normal rain freezing on cold ground/surfaces forms when a winter warm front drops rain through the cold - below zero wedge of air below. Then super cooled droplets form - still water although below zero degrees. The environment is then filled with these highly unstable droplets - waiting only for the slightest vibration (your aircraft is more than is needed) to turn them into solid ice.
When a wing hits freezing rain, the drops start to run back across the surface, freezing as they go. The next drops follow and pretty soon you have a tenacious thick layer of ice.
This is why most airlines forbid take-off in freezing rain and why any HOT (hold over table) quoting a time for freezing rain is highly unreliable.
Anti icing systems vary - thermal ones often cannot cope in the take-off phase. Boots have the following effect:
If the boots are running when entering freezing rain, the droplets still freeze and run back along the surface. As the ice becomes thicker, a tube of ice develops around the maximum radius of the boots. You can run them all day after that but they are powerless to remove the tube.
If, despite the warnings to AVOID freezing rain, you find yourself flying in it, then you have to allow ice to begin to build BEFORE operating the boots. Then the boots can crack the layer away. the boots have to be deactivated and the process repeated. Obviously not a recommended scenario.
The ice doesn't only form on the wings - it will attack your prop, any intakes and sensors and cover your windshield pronto. All the aircraft's defences are at or beyond their limits in the severest cases.
So to those of you who are already familiar with this phenomenon, excuse the post and move on. Those who are not - be very respectful of freezing rain, freezing drizzle or heavy wet snow falls. All these scenarios have super cooled water in the game.
Lastly, this is a general note and in no way intended to be speculation on the cause of this sad crash.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Few Cloudy
Yup, that's a fair summary of my experience. Ironically, although it is the least threatening part of the experience, it is the instantaneous covering of the windshield that raises the pulse rate first!
Timothy
Yup, that's a fair summary of my experience. Ironically, although it is the least threatening part of the experience, it is the instantaneous covering of the windshield that raises the pulse rate first!
Timothy
Free Advice to Cessna Defense Lawyer
[list=1][*]In discovery, demand plaintiff lawyer find like configuration a/c and videotape flight in same icing conditions[*]Wait looong time while plaintiff lawyer goes through test pilots until one survives -- while a deep pocket plaintiff lawyer can consider airframes expendable, insurance for test pilots may be a problem. May need to find test pilots with painful terminal illness who'd rather go quickly than slowly.[*]Show all videos in court.[/list=1] In my book taking off in any a/c in freezing rain is the aerodynamic equivalent of driving a car into a bridge abutment at 80 mph. Leaving it on the ramp for fifteen minutes or more while ice acculumates is just icing on the cake
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what it's worth, in Canada it would be harder to prove liability on the part of Cessna than in the US. Years ago American courts adopted a standard of strict liability in products liability cases, which makes it much easier for plaintiffs to recover in the event of an accident like this one. In Canada in the event of a lawsuit the plaintiffs would have a much more difficult time of it, given the current state of the law which requires a plaintiff to prove negligence on the part of the manufacturer.