DHC Beaver down in Hawkesbury
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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, it doesn't supersede the type certificate, which make flight manual carriage mandatory. You missed the leading statement,
The type certificate, to repeat, does require. So the snooker table is all good. 
The following aircraft may not be required to have an AFM
The flight manual system for Australia was not based on the type certificate requirements. The Australian Flight Manual as such was a document uniquely Australian, and yes in its great and lofty self DCA produced its own document, later requiring the industry to produce it. (It is all caught up in the perceived unsuitability of the POH as a legal document) This was the document specified under 20.7.4. It wasn't much of a document, and its main purpose seemed to be to hold the (once again) unique Australian performance charts. This was only for part 23 aircraft and some odd balls (like the Bristol 170). For part 25 aircraft, the flight manual from the original certificating Authority was fine. It did end up with Australian supplements in it (like when some chaps went off and terrified themselves by redoing the Lear 24 landing performance) I cannot find any reference to a revised POH or flight manual for the DHC-2 float installation STC. The performance information for the floatplane has to be somewhere.
Just done that exercise with the obvious aircraft. These gyro dohickys are terrific for recording data, until some snot starts measuring to half a degree. But I think the big advancement has been that the assumed capabilities of the average pilot as expected by the certification FARs have been lowered, whilst in reality hopefully those capabilities have risen. The only way to gauge that "average pilot" clause was to give the FTE a go at flying it.
The performance information for the floatplane has to be somewhere.
I cannot find any reference to a revised POH or flight manual for the DHC-2 float installation STC
Last edited by megan; 9th Jan 2018 at 04:30. Reason: STC
Get a grip. I've done a few STCs including one for a floatplane and the associated flight manual supplements. Think about what you have just said. The TCDS dated at 26 encompass floatplanes which are fitted with edo and similarly for limited agricultural applications. There is nothing for wipline. Flight manuals and the scope of their contents are an operational matter and are controlled by operational requirements which feed into the regs in various countries. In Australia they were the 20.7 series of ANO/CAO, in America, FAR91, FAR121. For instance if the Flight Manual for the domestic certification of the DHC-2 had been written in English and French, a lot of countries would have required the french bit to be removed. The TCDS words are specifying that data shall be sufficient to produce a flight manual. Modern TCDS now specify a part number for the flight manual for the country of origin. Flight manuals for other countries get their own part number once the NAA for that country has decided what it actually wants in said manual. I say again, the Australian flight manual produced in Australia had little resemblance to its overseas counterpart and is not the generic manual quoted in the TCDS
Last edited by aeromariner; 9th Jan 2018 at 22:30.
Get a grip. I didn't say there were no STC add ons, I said the TCDS included said landing contrivances, and the TCDS items were included in the flight manual, as you would expect.
Be interested to see a copy. You can supply? Assume Australia in its wisdom knew more than the manufacturer.
I say again, the Australian flight manual produced in Australia had little resemblance to its overseas counterpart and is not the generic manual quoted in the TCDS
i strongly recommend you get some training in this, or complete an advanced Aircraft control course.
UL, apparently you have an aircraft of some type [unspecified, but presumably not a DHC2 on Edo's] that permits you to do with your skill level, recency and training a low level return to departure. Great. That capability, if so, is very specific to the aircraft type that you are operating, the skill and recency you have, and the conditions that may exist at the time of an event.
History is replete with examples of events that ended badly doing that manoeuvre. Suggesting that someone else should get training on that, against recommendations by the manufacturers, approved training programs, regulators, accident investigation bureau findings, and without knowledge of the aircraft type concerned is "courageous". What is apparently easy enough to be suggested to others with your aircraft will probably not match the capabilities of the aircraft or the pilots that you suggest take such training.
The aircraft characteristics of wing loading, drag polar power off, excess thrust, load, CG, roll rate, HQ, stall recognition etc will determine whether such a manoeuvre is feasible. After that, the level of training, recency, wind vector, obstacles, runway geometry will determine whether such a procedure if feasible, is an acceptable risk on the day. One of my 17 aircraft types I own I have specific operating procedures to permit a turn-back manoeuvre, and that is only acceptable on specific runways, following a specific procedure, and when particular energy levels have been achieved. That comes from flying with cold ejection seats. The same aircraft type I originally trained in 40 years ago, and at least then the seats were hot. My other high performance military aircraft, I would never plan on a turn-back, the aircraft performance cannot achieve one, an engine out landing is only going to work from being at low key or better with appropriate energy state and geometry to the runway. Other pilots talking about a turn-back will be removed from the cockpit. I don't mind losing an aircraft, I do mind losing friends.
The Part 23 aircraft generally do not have characteristics that permit a safe turn-back to be contemplated prior to a turn after takeoff. Most experimental aircraft also have inadequate performance to do so, those with high energy tend to also have high wing loadings, and that gives a high stall speed in the turn, and a high sink-rate engine out. Adding high drag count devices is not making it easier.
There is no certification basis to support a turn-back for a Part 23 Subpart B, or indeed any other Part aircraft. The performance data is not available, so in your procedure, you are a test pilot by choice.
§23.2105 Performance data.
§23.2110 Stall speed.
§23.2115 Takeoff performance.
§23.2135 Controllability.
§23.2145 Stability.
§23.2150 Stall characteristics, stall warning, and spins.
In cruise flight, the ability to manoeuvre is a function of height and speed, and the characteristics of the aircraft concerned. What a pilot does on the day should be as smart as possible, you may not get a chance for repeats. In low energy states, keeping it simple and ensuring control is maintained until the structure starts deforming has historically been a sound tactic.
Good luck.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting training in advanced aircraft control, is not dependent on aircraft type, it will give you a greater understanding of aircraft control at unusual attitudes, giving you, as a pilot, a broader skillset.
the turnback after take off obviously cannot be performed in every aircraft, i am sorry if it appears this is what i meant, but with a better understanding of flight at the edges of the envelope, and training and practice in this area, you can fly whatever your aircraft type is closer to its published limits safely.
a great, and sadly common occurance is the addition of top rudder to tighten up a turn to final, leading to the usual stall/spin scenario. but with additional training, and practice with a skilled instructor, you can be shown the effects and consequences of this first hand at altitude, and you will not be surprised if a situation comes up requiring you to tighten up a turn, giving you the skill to do it safely, knowing the traps and consequences from personal experience in training, in other words, you will know what will happen adding top rudder, and can regocnise when your doing it.
similar for the turn back, i know what my personal aircraft is capable of, and also what other aircraft types are capable of that i fly regularly, i know i would not do it in many types, and every type i fly requires a different mindset.
so, learn how every aircraft type you fly performs in the steep low/gliding descending turn, with a qualified instructor of course.
the turnback after take off obviously cannot be performed in every aircraft, i am sorry if it appears this is what i meant, but with a better understanding of flight at the edges of the envelope, and training and practice in this area, you can fly whatever your aircraft type is closer to its published limits safely.
a great, and sadly common occurance is the addition of top rudder to tighten up a turn to final, leading to the usual stall/spin scenario. but with additional training, and practice with a skilled instructor, you can be shown the effects and consequences of this first hand at altitude, and you will not be surprised if a situation comes up requiring you to tighten up a turn, giving you the skill to do it safely, knowing the traps and consequences from personal experience in training, in other words, you will know what will happen adding top rudder, and can regocnise when your doing it.
similar for the turn back, i know what my personal aircraft is capable of, and also what other aircraft types are capable of that i fly regularly, i know i would not do it in many types, and every type i fly requires a different mindset.
so, learn how every aircraft type you fly performs in the steep low/gliding descending turn, with a qualified instructor of course.
Get a grip. I didn't say there were no STC add ons, I said the TCDS included said landing contrivances, and the TCDS items were included in the flight manual, as you would expect.Be interested to see a copy. You can supply? Assume Australia in its wisdom knew more than the manufacturer.
It sort of made sense in the 1950s and did have some resemblance to today. It was a standard format (like GAMA)
It was all approved. It overrode data in the POH, but the POH was still used for checklists etc (like approved and unapproved data in current flight manuals)
It had just basic limitations and some honest performance data and a list of what placards. It converted US gallons to imp gallons and mph to kts. Most importantly weight and balance info for some aircraft was woeful, and it did fix that with a decent W&B section
The problem was it hung around too long - 10 years too long. DCA was not proactive in saying to manufacturers put the limitations and placards into this format and give us some honest performance and get the marketting weight and balance out of manuals. and we'll approve that bit. DCA could have been up there with GAMA in that respect. In the 1970's the GA industry moved away from backs of envelopes and scraps of paper into full blown usable and useful documents. Meanwhile DCA trudged along (it was said that if the doors to DCA buildings were inadvertently locked from the outside, nobody would notice until the lease ran out). The methods that DCA used to produce performance charts were (and still are) widely used around the globe .... but they wouldn't trust manufacturers to use them.
It was all approved. It overrode data in the POH, but the POH was still used for checklists etc (like approved and unapproved data in current flight manuals)
It had just basic limitations and some honest performance data and a list of what placards. It converted US gallons to imp gallons and mph to kts. Most importantly weight and balance info for some aircraft was woeful, and it did fix that with a decent W&B section
The problem was it hung around too long - 10 years too long. DCA was not proactive in saying to manufacturers put the limitations and placards into this format and give us some honest performance and get the marketting weight and balance out of manuals. and we'll approve that bit. DCA could have been up there with GAMA in that respect. In the 1970's the GA industry moved away from backs of envelopes and scraps of paper into full blown usable and useful documents. Meanwhile DCA trudged along (it was said that if the doors to DCA buildings were inadvertently locked from the outside, nobody would notice until the lease ran out). The methods that DCA used to produce performance charts were (and still are) widely used around the globe .... but they wouldn't trust manufacturers to use them.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This aircraft DOSE not require an stc etc for floats, nor for ski nor for ag.
The aircraft was designed and developed for these options. This options are listed in the m/m and ipc. As such no other cerification is required. Seams alot of poeple jibba gabba about an aircraft they have no idea about
The aircraft was designed and developed for these options. This options are listed in the m/m and ipc. As such no other cerification is required. Seams alot of poeple jibba gabba about an aircraft they have no idea about
UL" a great, and sadly common occurance is the addition of top rudder to tighten up a turn to final, leading to the usual stall/spin scenario. "
How does top rudder lead to the usual stall/spin scenario in a turn?
How does top rudder lead to the usual stall/spin scenario in a turn?
Last edited by OZ-G10; 11th Jan 2018 at 04:57.
OZ, I assume he means the situation where AOB Is increased during the base to final turn, but they still won't make it, and they are scared to go around, or to increase bank. Common error is to apply more rudder, and perhaps even apply opposite aileron to prevent more bank angle. All whilst pulling back. Possible spin entry results.
Although I wouldn't call that top rudder.
Although I wouldn't call that top rudder.
Moderator
Typical thread drift by arm chair experts!
No longer news. Moving to the GA Forum.
No longer news. Moving to the GA Forum.
With respect to the flight manual question, an operator's CP has kindly provided the following,
The DHC-2 Flight Manuals that we have here seem to be issued by the De Havilland Canada company of Downsview Ontario and have been approved by the DOT Canada then re validated by CASA.
Our Manuals are all identical except for the fact that we have multiple Manual Supplements for our Seaplane configuration.
Our Manuals are all identical except for the fact that we have multiple Manual Supplements for our Seaplane configuration.