Cessna Caravan 208 - Fixed Landing Gear?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern Sun
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cessna Caravan 208 - Fixed Landing Gear?
I was under the impression the Cessna Caravan 208 has a fixed landing gear?
Is this a hole in the pilot's story or another journalistic incompetence?
DK
Aussie plane sparks Singapore scare
Sanna Trad | March 10, 2008
THE passenger of an Australian float plane, which sparked an international security scare and closed Changi airport when it flew into Singaporean airspace, says he and the pilot were the victims of a hoax security warning.
Darren Johnson, the lone passenger on the Cessna 208 Caravan on its January 22 flight, said Singaporean authorities were given false information about the flight, from the southern Thai resort island of Koh Samui to Singapore.
It was an allegation that the aircraft had been stolen while on a test flight that prompted Singaporean authorities to close air traffic for an hour and scramble two FA-16 fighter jets to force the plane down.
"The real reason our aircraft was assessed as a security threat by Singapore is that someone deliberately made false statements about our aircraft to Singapore authorities whilst we were in flight," Mr Johnson said in a statement to The Australian.
He alleges that Singaporean authorities were told the aircraft was stolen, unregistered and had left Thai airspace under suspicious circumstances.
He said the "malicious" claims were made because the plane's pilot, Rhys Thomas, had refused to pay bribes in Thailand.
"I witnessed the bribes being asked by two Thai individuals at the time of settlement of the purchase of the aircraft at Koh Samui on January 21, 2008," Mr Johnson said.
Mr Johnson said Mr Thomas had purchased the plane in Koh Samui and on January 22 took it for a one-hour test flight before a planned flight to Broome.
During the test flight, the pilot realised the landing gear of the plane would not completely go down and he chose to fly to Seletar airport in Singapore because he knew the facilities there were adequate. After being forced down by the jets, Mr Johnson and Mr Thomas were arrested. After 48 hours they were released, only to be held under "house arrest" for the next five weeks.
Mr Johnson said they were accused of trying to enter Singapore airspace without clearance or a flight plan, of not making radio contact and of being an unidentified aircraft.
Mr Thomas has since been charged with flying an aircraft without a certificate of airworthiness. He remains in Singapore and appeared in a pre-trial hearing on Friday.
Mr Johnson, who has returned to Broome, said he and Mr Thomas had been in regular radio contact with Singaporean, Thai and British flight authorities after they left Koh Samui.
"Our flight plan was accepted and we were cleared through Malaysia and Singapore. We were specifically cleared by Singapore to enter into their airspace to land at Seletar Airport," he said.
"At all times in Singapore we continued to be radar identified and on track and in constant two-way contact."
The Australian understands Mr Thomas approached the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority asking about airworthiness documentation required for a flight over Singapore.
Correspondence between CASA officials and officials of the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, seen by The Australian, shows Mr Thomas was initially told by a CASA official he required a certificate of airworthiness, but was later told he did not.
He was then told that he had no need for a document called a Special Flight Permit, which would obviate the need for a certificate of airworthiness. On January 22, the day of the flight, he was informed by voicemail that he in fact required a Special Flight Permit.
Spokesman Peter Gibson said yesterday CASA did not have the authority to tell Mr Thomas what he would or would not require to fly over Singapore.
"All we can give him is advice. We do not have jurisdiction over Singapore and it was his responsibility to seek advice from the authorities in Singapore before flying out," he said.
"We did what we could to correct the information that was given to him by a CASA official. There is still a question as to whether that reached him, but our message to all pilots is that it's their responsibility to check these things with the country they are flying to."
Special Flight Permits for Singapore are issued by the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore.
Attempts to contact Mr Thomas's lawyers yesterday were unsuccessful.
Is this a hole in the pilot's story or another journalistic incompetence?
DK
Aussie plane sparks Singapore scare
Sanna Trad | March 10, 2008
THE passenger of an Australian float plane, which sparked an international security scare and closed Changi airport when it flew into Singaporean airspace, says he and the pilot were the victims of a hoax security warning.
Darren Johnson, the lone passenger on the Cessna 208 Caravan on its January 22 flight, said Singaporean authorities were given false information about the flight, from the southern Thai resort island of Koh Samui to Singapore.
It was an allegation that the aircraft had been stolen while on a test flight that prompted Singaporean authorities to close air traffic for an hour and scramble two FA-16 fighter jets to force the plane down.
"The real reason our aircraft was assessed as a security threat by Singapore is that someone deliberately made false statements about our aircraft to Singapore authorities whilst we were in flight," Mr Johnson said in a statement to The Australian.
He alleges that Singaporean authorities were told the aircraft was stolen, unregistered and had left Thai airspace under suspicious circumstances.
He said the "malicious" claims were made because the plane's pilot, Rhys Thomas, had refused to pay bribes in Thailand.
"I witnessed the bribes being asked by two Thai individuals at the time of settlement of the purchase of the aircraft at Koh Samui on January 21, 2008," Mr Johnson said.
Mr Johnson said Mr Thomas had purchased the plane in Koh Samui and on January 22 took it for a one-hour test flight before a planned flight to Broome.
During the test flight, the pilot realised the landing gear of the plane would not completely go down and he chose to fly to Seletar airport in Singapore because he knew the facilities there were adequate. After being forced down by the jets, Mr Johnson and Mr Thomas were arrested. After 48 hours they were released, only to be held under "house arrest" for the next five weeks.
Mr Johnson said they were accused of trying to enter Singapore airspace without clearance or a flight plan, of not making radio contact and of being an unidentified aircraft.
Mr Thomas has since been charged with flying an aircraft without a certificate of airworthiness. He remains in Singapore and appeared in a pre-trial hearing on Friday.
Mr Johnson, who has returned to Broome, said he and Mr Thomas had been in regular radio contact with Singaporean, Thai and British flight authorities after they left Koh Samui.
"Our flight plan was accepted and we were cleared through Malaysia and Singapore. We were specifically cleared by Singapore to enter into their airspace to land at Seletar Airport," he said.
"At all times in Singapore we continued to be radar identified and on track and in constant two-way contact."
The Australian understands Mr Thomas approached the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority asking about airworthiness documentation required for a flight over Singapore.
Correspondence between CASA officials and officials of the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, seen by The Australian, shows Mr Thomas was initially told by a CASA official he required a certificate of airworthiness, but was later told he did not.
He was then told that he had no need for a document called a Special Flight Permit, which would obviate the need for a certificate of airworthiness. On January 22, the day of the flight, he was informed by voicemail that he in fact required a Special Flight Permit.
Spokesman Peter Gibson said yesterday CASA did not have the authority to tell Mr Thomas what he would or would not require to fly over Singapore.
"All we can give him is advice. We do not have jurisdiction over Singapore and it was his responsibility to seek advice from the authorities in Singapore before flying out," he said.
"We did what we could to correct the information that was given to him by a CASA official. There is still a question as to whether that reached him, but our message to all pilots is that it's their responsibility to check these things with the country they are flying to."
Special Flight Permits for Singapore are issued by the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore.
Attempts to contact Mr Thomas's lawyers yesterday were unsuccessful.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Gold Coast
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
more researc h needed
Oh dear if you had read the whole article you would have noticed that the aircraft is an amphibian. The wheels do have to go up and down otherwise the there will be lots of scraping noises or a big splash when they land.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: somewhere about
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If anything, this makes the least sense:
"Mr Johnson said Mr Thomas had purchased the plane in Koh Samui and on January 22 took it for a one-hour test flight before a planned flight to Broome.
During the test flight, the pilot realised the landing gear of the plane would not completely go down and he chose to fly to Seletar airport in Singapore because he knew the facilities there were adequate"
So once the gear failed in the test flight, they flew 600nm+ to find a suitable airport!
"Mr Johnson said Mr Thomas had purchased the plane in Koh Samui and on January 22 took it for a one-hour test flight before a planned flight to Broome.
During the test flight, the pilot realised the landing gear of the plane would not completely go down and he chose to fly to Seletar airport in Singapore because he knew the facilities there were adequate"
So once the gear failed in the test flight, they flew 600nm+ to find a suitable airport!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Retract Gear 208
Hello All
Just to add to all the info.
The retract system on the 208 anfib. is always its week link and requires lots of care and maintance.
The main wheels pull up into a cavity that is flodded when on water , so the poor old gear is submerged when the aircraft is 'wet'.
Even when maintained failures are common, the Whipline floats have a sacrificial landing strip along the bottom so you can very safley land wheels up on land and have the strip or belts as they are sometimes called replaced very quickly and cheaply, well cheaply as these things are, but the piont is you dont loose $750000 worth of floats.
Now wheels stuck down for a water landing, dont think any one has survived a 208 'leg out wet'.
Google/youtube :wheels down float water landing (or such).
All very dramatic stuff !
With wheels out the 208 is about 7 to 10 kts slower, you would divert if you had a failure to somewhere that it could be looked at by friendly eyes but that sound like a long way,
Cheers,
Solocmv.
Just to add to all the info.
The retract system on the 208 anfib. is always its week link and requires lots of care and maintance.
The main wheels pull up into a cavity that is flodded when on water , so the poor old gear is submerged when the aircraft is 'wet'.
Even when maintained failures are common, the Whipline floats have a sacrificial landing strip along the bottom so you can very safley land wheels up on land and have the strip or belts as they are sometimes called replaced very quickly and cheaply, well cheaply as these things are, but the piont is you dont loose $750000 worth of floats.
Now wheels stuck down for a water landing, dont think any one has survived a 208 'leg out wet'.
Google/youtube :wheels down float water landing (or such).
All very dramatic stuff !
With wheels out the 208 is about 7 to 10 kts slower, you would divert if you had a failure to somewhere that it could be looked at by friendly eyes but that sound like a long way,
Cheers,
Solocmv.
Even when maintained failures are common
trouble with the undercarriage!
Cannot see why the C208 rig would be any different. Maybe they went cheap to reduce the costs. ??
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Wheels up in a C208 amphib on land - safe - yes, cheap - no. Three of the four wheels up landings that I've heard about required replacement of some of the skins in addition to the keel strips and keel mouldings, and resulted in a substantial amount of downtime (greater than a month). The higher landing speeds and heavier landing weight appear to be quite unforgiving compared to other amphibians.
Landing on water in a C208 with a leg down - I haven't heard of anyone doing it yet. Do it in most amphibs and it normally results in the pilot (and any pax) going for an unplanned swim.
Reliability of amphib floats - I think it depends on where they are operated. Stones can jam the gear locks preventing extension. Salt water also causes problems. I haven't heard of anyone landing with not all locked in the one direction, but I know of a number of landings where the surface (water or land) was determined by the position of the gear.
W
Landing on water in a C208 with a leg down - I haven't heard of anyone doing it yet. Do it in most amphibs and it normally results in the pilot (and any pax) going for an unplanned swim.
Reliability of amphib floats - I think it depends on where they are operated. Stones can jam the gear locks preventing extension. Salt water also causes problems. I haven't heard of anyone landing with not all locked in the one direction, but I know of a number of landings where the surface (water or land) was determined by the position of the gear.
W
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Gold Coast
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
amphib maintenance
I too have spent many years in and around amphib floats. They are a maintenance nightmare. Wheel bearings and brakes need constant attention, hydraulic lines and salt water hate each other and a fully blown nose wheel shimmey will certainly get your attention. I have personally landed an Otter on the water on older EDO floats with the front wheels safely up but the mains dangling, but not locked down, below the floats due to the lack of hydraulic oil [ it was on the floor under the co-pilot's seat ]. The water seemed the best option and we pulled it off without a problem. I have also witnessed a Beaver land on water with one front gear leg locked down. The pilot did not know it was down and the aircraft only suffered a slight yaw to the right as it came off the step. The same aircraft landed with one front gear leg up on the bitumen some time later. Once again no Drama. They are versatile machines but are an engineer's problem child.l
