The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

DHC Beaver down in Hawkesbury

Old 6th Jan 2018, 22:47
  #181 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: australia
Posts: 33
Some pics of the float damage on Kathryns report site

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2018/0...er-vh-noo.html
A681001 is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2018, 02:09
  #182 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,667
Certification is really no more than a theoretical benchmark that we believe indicates than an aircraft will be safe and durable.

Unlike road vehicle certification which changes regularly to incorporate the lessons of real world experience, aircraft certification changes very rarely. So not only is it a theoretical benchmark, it’s an outdated theoretical benchmark.

The other approach is real world experience.

I would argue that the beaver more than most others has demonstrated that it passes the real world tests with margin to spare.
Old Akro is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2018, 03:44
  #183 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,048
There are two interesting points about this data. First, does it relate to aircraft with wheels, skis or floats? I would expect a difference between, say, wheels and floats
The flight manual says there is no difference in stall speed between wheels, skis or floats (Section IV, page 40).

From the FAA TCDS.

Certification - CAR 10 in conformity with data forming the basis for DOT Aircraft Type Approval No. A-22 based on British Civil Airworthiness Requirements as amended to June 1, 1947, Normal Category, and Information Circular T/4/48 dated March 3, 1948. (This certification equivalent to CAR 3 dated November 13, 1945). FAA Airplane Type Certificate No. A-806 amended to May 6, 1953 was issued. Date of application for Type Certificate March 21, 1947 (to the DOT).

Equipment - The basic required equipment as prescribed in the applicable airworthiness regulations (see Certification Basis) must be installed in the aircraft for certification.

In addition, the following items of equipment must be in each aircraft at all times:

1. Canadian approved de Havilland DHC-2 Mk. I Flight Manual dated March 31, 1956.

2. Current de Havilland Beaver Weight and Balance Report, including list of Equipment in Certificated Weight Empty. (Items listed as required equipment must not be removed unless replaced by approved equipment items).
Hard to see our regulatory allowing operations without a flight manual when the FAA calls for its mandatory carriage. Bless me, Connedrod wrong, again?
megan is online now  
Old 7th Jan 2018, 03:57
  #184 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: melbourne
Age: 69
Posts: 101
Originally Posted by LOMCEVAK View Post
Once certificated, an aircraft does not have to retrospectively satisfy any new certification standards that are promulgated. Therefore, the Beaver would only have to meet the standards required at the time of its initial certification. There are, therefore, many aircraft flying which do not meet current certification standards.
.
Not the point of the post but see SFAR88. Amendment 45 to my way of thinking is an acceptable standard for stalling. I don't know what happened when the STC for floats was issued, but the FAA would have been perfectly within their rights to ask for anything they liked at the time of application (up to the applicable standard in force which I am assuming was around amendment 45) for the STC The FAA were generally looking for no stick lightening and adequate pitch at the stall, in 1980 when the Nomad floatplane was being certified. I'm pretty sure the stall warning words have been in the rules since CAR3 at amendment 4 way back in 1951 or so. The stall spin accident history for the Beaver is not good. As to the flight manual question, how did it comply with ANO20.7.4?
aeromariner is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2018, 04:07
  #185 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: melbourne
Age: 69
Posts: 101
Originally Posted by Old Akro View Post
Certification is really no more than a theoretical benchmark that we believe indicates than an aircraft will be safe and durable.

Unlike road vehicle certification which changes regularly to incorporate the lessons of real world experience, aircraft certification changes very rarely. So not only is it a theoretical benchmark, it’s an outdated theoretical benchmark.

The other approach is real world experience.

I would argue that the beaver more than most others has demonstrated that it passes the real world tests with margin to spare.
Have you actually read the FARs? 62 amendments since 1965 for part 23, over 140 amendments for FAR25 since 1965 - not counting the SFARs
aeromariner is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2018, 05:21
  #186 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: melbourne
Age: 69
Posts: 101
Originally Posted by LOMCEVAK View Post
O
One aspect of stalling requirements for part 23 certification that needs to be taken into account is that stall tests are flown wings level and with 30 deg AoB in both directions, and all are flown with idle power and 75% max continuous power. Stalling characteristics at higher power settings and greater bank angles/normal accelerations are not tested and, therefore, some aircraft may demonstrate adverse stalling characteristics at high power and high g and still be certificated.
Not so easy the FAA may use FAR23.143 (b) to make life uncomfortable. They regard it to be applicable to recovering from a stall.
aeromariner is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2018, 05:35
  #187 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 173
Originally Posted by LOMCEVAK View Post
zzuf,
I used the phrase 'accelerated stall' to mean a stall at greater than 1g (as per Def Stan 00-970 and Mil Specs). FAR23 and CS23 use the same phrase to mean a deceleration rate of 3-5 IAS per second - again, apologies for ambiguous phraseology. At 30 deg AoB and 75% MCP the pitch attitude will be high to achieve the deceleration but normal acceleration and IAS will be low. I have flown this test in a high powered piston aircraft under the old CAA Schedule 233 and been about 60 deg nose up with full rudder and almost full aileron, the ASI below its minimum value and still not reached an aerodynamic stall! However, normal acceleration was less that 1 due to the nose up attitude. Remember that it is pitch attitude that determines the deceleration rate, not normal acceleration.
L
Lomcevak,
I had intended to leave the response as a PM, changed my mind due to other responses.
A requirement of FAR 23.203 is deceleration at 3 to 5 kts per second, "with steadily increasing normal acceleration". It seems that you have misinterpreted the FAR and that the tests you have done are not correct.
I typically tried for a stall at about 2g, generally it requires a bit of a work up to hit 2g (with g steadily increasing), 3 - 5 kts per second deceleration, 30 degrees of bank and stall simultaneously.
But, as you mentioned, there will be plenty of low g, low speed, high pitch attitude experiences as you develop a test procedure for a particular aircraft.
Don't forget these are test points to be demonstrated for certification, looks simple, but the workup may be time consuming and involve some exacting aircraft control. Of course after you hit the test point you need to accurately record the aircraft behaviour.
If you have ever flown tests to determine lift and thrust boundaries you will know that your last sentence (above) won't survive much scrutiny.
Cheers
zzuf is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2018, 08:11
  #188 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 7
[QUOTE=megan;10012899]The flight manual says there is no difference in stall speed between wheels, skis or floats (Section IV, page 40).

From the FAA TCDS.

Hard to see our regulatory allowing operations without a flight manual when the FAA calls for its mandatory carriage. Bless me, Connedrod wrong,

Like i have stated. The dhc -2 was cerified in australia with out a stall warning and a fight manual, period. We are not under faa rules in case you didnt know. Abd btw i have worked on IDI as an ag machine. I am also lead to believe i was also involved on the transition to floats. I also have been involved in many rebuilds of dhc-2 beavers. So how many have you worked on or flown. Also family members that have over 160 hours flying time in idi.
Like i have previously stateed the aircraft in ag use had a 1 page statement that was on the fwd side of the hopper and thats it .
Prehaps you should learn some histroy before you say im wrong when in fact your the one thats incorrect and not the first time.
Connedrod is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2018, 09:37
  #189 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Sydney
Posts: 28
feueraxt is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2018, 17:54
  #190 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 633
zzuf,

I agree with what you have said and with respect to your reference to my last sentence:
Remember that it is pitch attitude that determines the deceleration rate, not normal acceleration.
I fear that in trying to be brief I have been ambiguous.

The instantaneous deceleration rate is a function of pitch attitude (which determines the longitudinal axis component of weight) but to keep longitudinal deceleration constant the pitch attitude must be increased at an increasing rate which, de facto, requires increasing normal acceleration. In practice, each pilot will develop a technique and scan pattern to achieve what is required to fly the test as it is required for certification. I use pitch attitude and decel rate and the required g increase then occurs.

megan,

Thanks for the steer to the stall data in Section IV.

Rgds

L

Last edited by LOMCEVAK; 7th Jan 2018 at 18:28.
LOMCEVAK is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2018, 00:57
  #191 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,048
Prehaps you should learn some histroy before you say im wrong when in fact your the one thats incorrect and not the first time
Just talked to a VERY PROMINENT Australian operator of Beavers and he states that the aircraft is required to have on board a flight manual, and the manual carries the CASA stamp of approval. Well I never.

You'll remember you said originally,
The breaver in standard form is not fitted with a stall warning system. It also dose not have a pilot operating manual or handbook
It may be the ag aircraft were exempt, but the statement you made is nonsense, it does have a flight manual, and Australian aircraft are currently required to carry it.
megan is online now  
Old 8th Jan 2018, 01:09
  #192 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 476
Carries CASA stamp of approval!

Interesting, is that a requirement still? I have seen a few of them around, but most were thrown in the bin.
Bend alot is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2018, 03:25
  #193 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 107
I have not flown FW on floats, just helicopters. I also do not know that area, but is wild bird life a problem given the vast area of water?

There may now be no evidence of a bird strike, or the pilot may have taken reflexive control input leading to a stall, if a large bird suddenly appeared right in front of him.

RIP all the victims.
Old Farang is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2018, 03:42
  #194 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Philippines
Posts: 2
id like to ask the guys here, as its been a while since i did air law.
Would this pilot have required a biennial review in this exact type of aircraft (a DHC2 float) or could he satisfy that requirement in the Caravan float ( single engine floatplane)
rebuilder86 is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2018, 04:40
  #195 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,894
Funny you should say that, OF. I made a post in this thread after my most recent flight, noting that I had 3 near misses - two with big birds and one with a flock of big birds. I also noted that I had watched a year of Senate Committee inquiries in which the danger caused by drones was causing great consternation.

For some reason it was deleted by the moderators.

----------------------------------------

It was deleted due to a reference to another post (also deleted) and your first line comment. I'm surprised you suggest you are

The acceptable part of your post was:

Just got back from a two day trip during which I had 3 near-misses with large birds and 1 near-miss with a big flock of large birds. Just sat through a year of Senate Committee hearings during which the extreme danger posed by drones was the biggest air safety risk of the century.

But I guess there are no birds or drones at low level around Cowan Creek, or that if there are, us super-pilots would be able to “keep focus on power and pitch”.
Tail Wheel
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2018, 06:29
  #196 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,048
Carries CASA stamp of approval!

Interesting, is that a requirement still? I have seen a few of them around, but most were thrown in the bin.
AFM requirements. You'll note the Beaver has to have one, does not make it to the exempt list.

https://www.casa.gov.au/file/184221/...token=bQ9iGp1U

The original Canadian Beaver type certificate A-22, on which basis Australia accepted the aircraft, not from the FAA certification. Note the requirement to carry a flight manual in the certificate, must be carried at all times.

Connedrod, you're snookered.

http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/saf-sec-sur/...M=&id_num=1141

Last edited by megan; 8th Jan 2018 at 06:47.
megan is online now  
Old 8th Jan 2018, 07:09
  #197 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 476
Aircraft, other than those mentioned under paragraph 2.4.3 or Appendix A, are all required to have an AFM.

Here is para 2.4.3 for the snooker table!



The following aircraft may not be required to have an AFM:


a. aircraft up to a MTOW of2,722 kg (6,000 lb) manufactured and flown prior to 1 March 1979


b. historic and ex-military aircraft


c. amateur-built aircraft


d. experimental aircraft


e. hang gliders operated under Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 95.8


f. ultralight aircraft operated under CAO 95.10 and CAO 95.55


g. gyroplanes operated under CAO 95.12 and CAO 95.12.1


h. weight shift controlled aeroplanes and powered parachutes operated under CAO 95.32.


Bend alot is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2018, 10:38
  #198 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 343
My god! You were so sure Yr right conedrod! Perhaps yr wrong.
Cloudee is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2018, 11:01
  #199 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
Guys

It really doesn't matter - the plane crashed and people were killed

There is no problem with giving an opinion on why but that's all it is

the Accident Report will explain it all in excruciating detail - no need to trash each other
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2018, 11:32
  #200 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 476
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry View Post
Guys

It really doesn't matter - the plane crashed and people were killed

There is no problem with giving an opinion on why but that's all it is

the Accident Report will explain it all in excruciating detail - no need to trash each other


They don't have crystal balls either - so doubtful much will be explained in much detail unless one of the front occupants had an issues that can be proven pre impact.

I recall a Baron going in at one of the mines in the NT some years ago, not a lot of detail came from that - and that is common in crashes.
Bend alot is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.