Don't fly on light twins advises Air Passenger Association!
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tower dog...I'm absolutely stunned. I had guessed about the overload but hesitated to speculate. As for the rest of it its beyond belief.
I'd like to see anything fly on one engine with a cg aft out of limits, a hot and humid day,and overweight by that amount.
I'm amazed that people tried to save money by hiring such a cut price operator for such a valuable person.
I'd like to see anything fly on one engine with a cg aft out of limits, a hot and humid day,and overweight by that amount.
I'm amazed that people tried to save money by hiring such a cut price operator for such a valuable person.
I'matightbastard
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why's she "such a valuable person"? Just because she sings for a living instead of doing something useful like being a dentist or a teacher? What about all the other people that bought it? was it ok to put them on the low price carrier?
ok, rant off and appologies to aztruck. Not meant to be a personal attack etc etc.
ok, rant off and appologies to aztruck. Not meant to be a personal attack etc etc.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Onan...nearly forgot.
luvverly thick neoprene survival suits but rubber coated or something like it. good for bobbing up and down in the Atlantic for several hours and avoiding death. Also had the dinghy of course, because if you can get into that then you have increased your chances by several squillion per cent.
When we took off next morning bound from Narsarssuaq to kulusuk there was a 172 on the ramp bound for Goose. He just had the one piston engine between him and the sea.
Dunno about that folks.
luvverly thick neoprene survival suits but rubber coated or something like it. good for bobbing up and down in the Atlantic for several hours and avoiding death. Also had the dinghy of course, because if you can get into that then you have increased your chances by several squillion per cent.
When we took off next morning bound from Narsarssuaq to kulusuk there was a 172 on the ramp bound for Goose. He just had the one piston engine between him and the sea.
Dunno about that folks.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: The land of chocolate and cuckoo clocks!
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a shame to slag of piston twins in general just because that particular one was so over weight. Most turbo prop twins would fare just as badly with that overload if one donkey went on holiday just after take-off, and JetA1 burns on impact too!
Many pilots got their start in pistons and many more will, perhaps the regulatory authorities need to be a bit more concientious and some operators in less of a hurry for some quick greenbacks...and sympathies to the poor ****** who probably had no choice if he wanted that job. No one is perfect!
Many pilots got their start in pistons and many more will, perhaps the regulatory authorities need to be a bit more concientious and some operators in less of a hurry for some quick greenbacks...and sympathies to the poor ****** who probably had no choice if he wanted that job. No one is perfect!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Pacific NW, USA
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did anyone see this airpassengerassociation prez on the tube the other night, what a blow-hard. I've heard this guy before. If he had his way we'd be paying the pax for the privilege of carrying them. And forget about personnal responsibility, it wasn't this doper pilot's fault or the pi**-ant little company he flew for. This APA prez said this falls totally on the FAA's shoulders for their lack of oversight and enforcement. Well, I've certainly not noticed a lack of either. This is a big ass country with a lot of freedom, freedom to be stupid and careless is among them.
edited to clarify X'd out word
[ 31 August 2001: Message edited by: Brad737 ]
edited to clarify X'd out word
[ 31 August 2001: Message edited by: Brad737 ]
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all I have about equal time between PT6's and Garrett 331. I have had 3 engine failures with the PT6 and none with the Garrett. All of them on take-off. So turboprops are not necessarily more reliable. After all they also have a large number of moving parts.
I flew 402B for a little bit. I remember them having only 300HP. And it is a Continental. Managed to servive over 1200 hours of communter flying in a Navajo without an engine failure. As we get older we get more careful.
As for a Cessna 337. It is basicly a Cessna 206 with two engines. The 206 flys much, much better. Also to my knowledge 337's have more engine failures than 206's.
Lets wait and see what the investigation brings out first.
I agree that the APA guy is full of it.
But there are too many operators out there that will totally kiss the clients rear end and screw over the pilot, when all he is trying to do is keep the client safe. To many people, mostly doctors, lawyers, rich business persons, seem to think that the rules do not apply to them. Even the laws of aerodynamics. On more than one occassion I have tossed my ID to the boss and started to walk out the door. And on each instance he has relented. One of these days he'll let me keep walking. If that happens, it'll be a job I don't miss too much. Cause you have to be alive to get another job.
About FAA oversight. All increased FAA oversight does is increase the workload on the good and legal operators. The illegal and/or poor operators always seem to get away with it.
I flew 402B for a little bit. I remember them having only 300HP. And it is a Continental. Managed to servive over 1200 hours of communter flying in a Navajo without an engine failure. As we get older we get more careful.
As for a Cessna 337. It is basicly a Cessna 206 with two engines. The 206 flys much, much better. Also to my knowledge 337's have more engine failures than 206's.
Lets wait and see what the investigation brings out first.
I agree that the APA guy is full of it.
But there are too many operators out there that will totally kiss the clients rear end and screw over the pilot, when all he is trying to do is keep the client safe. To many people, mostly doctors, lawyers, rich business persons, seem to think that the rules do not apply to them. Even the laws of aerodynamics. On more than one occassion I have tossed my ID to the boss and started to walk out the door. And on each instance he has relented. One of these days he'll let me keep walking. If that happens, it'll be a job I don't miss too much. Cause you have to be alive to get another job.
About FAA oversight. All increased FAA oversight does is increase the workload on the good and legal operators. The illegal and/or poor operators always seem to get away with it.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's really really simple.
Cessna 402 and the others in that class are designed and built to FAR23 certification rules which are promulgated around "private, business and recreation" and NOT "transport category" as are FAR25 types.
Apart from a number of fundamental structural issues, FAR 25 aircraft have required/gauranteed engine failure on take off performance. FAR23 do not and are not required to demonstrate any ability to continue take off beyond demonstrating a "positive" (=> +50fpm) ROC from 50ft. and the ability to maintain crz at 5,000ft in ISA in the cruise config with one inop and feathered.
End of story, period, thats the facts.
It does not make the FAR 23 types "dangerous" just a different level of "safety" and "cost".
Having said that whether it was a C402 or B747 overloaded by the same percentage (around 16%) over gross then the results would likely have been the same if anyhing higher than the fence appeared in front of you.
Both fine aircraft and no more or less difficult to operate than each other, as long as they are operated within the limits to which they wee certified.
B744 at 64 tonnes over gross, yeah right!
Cessna 402 and the others in that class are designed and built to FAR23 certification rules which are promulgated around "private, business and recreation" and NOT "transport category" as are FAR25 types.
Apart from a number of fundamental structural issues, FAR 25 aircraft have required/gauranteed engine failure on take off performance. FAR23 do not and are not required to demonstrate any ability to continue take off beyond demonstrating a "positive" (=> +50fpm) ROC from 50ft. and the ability to maintain crz at 5,000ft in ISA in the cruise config with one inop and feathered.
End of story, period, thats the facts.
It does not make the FAR 23 types "dangerous" just a different level of "safety" and "cost".
Having said that whether it was a C402 or B747 overloaded by the same percentage (around 16%) over gross then the results would likely have been the same if anyhing higher than the fence appeared in front of you.
Both fine aircraft and no more or less difficult to operate than each other, as long as they are operated within the limits to which they wee certified.
B744 at 64 tonnes over gross, yeah right!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cessna 402B facts. Engines TSIO-520E 300hp. MTOW 2898kg. Cruise @ 65% = 180kts at 10,000' In short a lovely aircraft if treated in a professional manner. News Media reports state that the pilot had recently been in court on drug charges and that he was not listed on the operators list of pilots authorised to operate that aircraft. The media also states that the pilot had an argument with the passengers about overloading the aircraft prior to departure. I would say he didn't know weather it was christmas night or cracker night. In his state of mind I might dare to suggest that he was going to give the pax a scare by pulling up hard on departure and it all back fired. p.s. lycoming IO-540's do fail.
SkyGod
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Palm Coast, Florida, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
1 Post
grogmonster:
I believe the C-402s have the Continentals, not the Lycs.
Yes they all fail, but the in MHO the Cont's fail more.
Agree that the C-402 is a good plane to fly if operated within its limitations.
Same with the B-747: Have flown 'em both.
If the pay was the same, I would rather fly the C-402...(Less jet-lag)
I believe the C-402s have the Continentals, not the Lycs.
Yes they all fail, but the in MHO the Cont's fail more.
Agree that the C-402 is a good plane to fly if operated within its limitations.
Same with the B-747: Have flown 'em both.
If the pay was the same, I would rather fly the C-402...(Less jet-lag)
Just a numbered other
Seems to me that the paying public have a choice between safety and cost. That's fine as long as they are informed about the choice they are making.
Maybe they should be told whether their prospective jaunt is in a Perf C/ FAR23 or a Perf A/FAR25 airplane before they fly, and allowed to make an intelligent decision.
Mind you, in this example, all that was needed was a tougher judge a couple of weeks ago. The inaptly named 'Morales' couldn't have killed anyone from a cell or with no job.
Maybe they should be told whether their prospective jaunt is in a Perf C/ FAR23 or a Perf A/FAR25 airplane before they fly, and allowed to make an intelligent decision.
Mind you, in this example, all that was needed was a tougher judge a couple of weeks ago. The inaptly named 'Morales' couldn't have killed anyone from a cell or with no job.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: west of the Tamar
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The issue of enabling the public to make a rational choice regarding safety before getting inside a non-Performance A aircraft throws up a whole can of worms. The fact is, in any mode of transport, we take a lot on trust. Do we check out a car driver we haven't travelled with before getting in the car? Basic assumptions about rail travel safety in the UK have certainly come under a lot criticism in the past couple of years, so the issue isn't confined to aviation.
Do we carefully weigh up the safety pros and cons before getting on a train, getting on a cross-channel ferry, or come to that, accepting the judgement of a doctor? Most of us, most of the time, can't be bothered. We rely on the organisational "system" and professional judgement to protect us. I can't imagine a bunch of vacationers, eager to get to their resort or home again, wanting to be confronted with making a safety decision on whether to fly or not. Most people just want to get to their destination, and they trust "the system" to get them their safely.
Surely the accident to the C402 was a systems failure more than anything, as others have pointed out. In other words, established legal procedures regarding loading and pilot qualifications were openly flouted, if the information given is correct. Nothing new there!
Engine failures in twin piston aircraft are going to happen from time to time, which is why twin drivers spend much of the time on a multi-engined training course flying the beast on one engine, and proving during licence revalidations that they still can handle it when the elastic breaks. I don't have any C402 time, only Seneca and Duchess, which are probably less of a handfull than a 402 with an engine out. How would I make out with a real engine failure at 200 ft, and committed to go? I don't know. I just hope that the training kicks in, I've got a reasonably clear head that day, and that I don't muddle the drill. Bit then I don't have a cowboy operator breathing down my neck with my job on the line if I kick up a fuss about something...
Do we carefully weigh up the safety pros and cons before getting on a train, getting on a cross-channel ferry, or come to that, accepting the judgement of a doctor? Most of us, most of the time, can't be bothered. We rely on the organisational "system" and professional judgement to protect us. I can't imagine a bunch of vacationers, eager to get to their resort or home again, wanting to be confronted with making a safety decision on whether to fly or not. Most people just want to get to their destination, and they trust "the system" to get them their safely.
Surely the accident to the C402 was a systems failure more than anything, as others have pointed out. In other words, established legal procedures regarding loading and pilot qualifications were openly flouted, if the information given is correct. Nothing new there!
Engine failures in twin piston aircraft are going to happen from time to time, which is why twin drivers spend much of the time on a multi-engined training course flying the beast on one engine, and proving during licence revalidations that they still can handle it when the elastic breaks. I don't have any C402 time, only Seneca and Duchess, which are probably less of a handfull than a 402 with an engine out. How would I make out with a real engine failure at 200 ft, and committed to go? I don't know. I just hope that the training kicks in, I've got a reasonably clear head that day, and that I don't muddle the drill. Bit then I don't have a cowboy operator breathing down my neck with my job on the line if I kick up a fuss about something...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
for info only...
1) All light piston twins have marginal engine-out performance
2) for these airplanes to be certified for FAR 135, or public transport under any certifying authority they should be required to be retrofitted with auto feather systems...yes they DO exist...
3) why would any agent or person responsible for the transport of any person, celebrity or otherwise, not investigate the company they hire to provide the above services....case in point....reba mc intyre's band...the ritchie valens/buddy holly/big bopper accident/patsy cline...and the list goes on....
1) All light piston twins have marginal engine-out performance
2) for these airplanes to be certified for FAR 135, or public transport under any certifying authority they should be required to be retrofitted with auto feather systems...yes they DO exist...
3) why would any agent or person responsible for the transport of any person, celebrity or otherwise, not investigate the company they hire to provide the above services....case in point....reba mc intyre's band...the ritchie valens/buddy holly/big bopper accident/patsy cline...and the list goes on....
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From my commuter days I recall that the 402B was a marginal single engine performer with 9 pax. I was thankful that No.2 engine did not go on vacation immediately after rotation, but somewhere in the later stages of climb. I was able to return to the airport in a shallow descent.
The 402C is a much improved performer with 325 hp engines. A capable 10 seater. The C model is distinguished from the A&B models by the absence of tip tanks.
The 402C is a much improved performer with 325 hp engines. A capable 10 seater. The C model is distinguished from the A&B models by the absence of tip tanks.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pax domina
Then my/our case rests.
You need professional accounting you hire a CPA, you need brain surgery a you hire a brain surgeon, you need someone to fly the companies most important and only multimillion dollar asset somewhere, you go find your next door neighbours kid who's building hours to do it.
Most enlightened companies don't but you'd be amazed at the number who do.
BTW, hiya haven't seen you around for a bit or is it vice versa
Then my/our case rests.
You need professional accounting you hire a CPA, you need brain surgery a you hire a brain surgeon, you need someone to fly the companies most important and only multimillion dollar asset somewhere, you go find your next door neighbours kid who's building hours to do it.
Most enlightened companies don't but you'd be amazed at the number who do.
BTW, hiya haven't seen you around for a bit or is it vice versa
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a previous life I was the Director of Operations and Check Airman for an FAR 135 check-hauling outfit. This after about 2000 hours in the C401/402 series. Not counting Twin Commanders, Navajos, Queen Airs, Barons and Beech 18s.
When flown by the book, the 401/402 will do a better job than most any other piston twin on one engine. When training new pilots on the type I spent A LOT of time on the ground, in the cockpit, hammering the engine out drill.
1. Pitch level and stand on the rudder
2. Both throttles full forward
3. Flaps up
4. Gear up
5. Identify
6. Verify
7. Feather
8. Speed Vyse
Afterwards we would go fly. After the first hour, which was used to just get familiar with the a/c, the new guy almost never flew the thing on two engines again. That he EVER had two running was primarily due to the fact that he had to demonstrate a normal ILS on the check ride.
My new guys never got less than 10 hours of single engine work, ILS, circling approaches,
non-precision straight in's, engine cuts after lift off, on crosswind, downwind and final, on the runway, the whole nine yards!
For most of them it was their first "real" flying job. They came to us with 1200 total time and maybe 200 hours of multi engine experience. The best sticks all had experience as multi engine instructors.
They all got the same drill for their IFR re-current as well.
The cost of cracked cylinders was enormous, but cheaper than loosing a pilot!
We had some failures, but never lost a pilot. One guy had a total electrical failure in hard ball IFR wx at night. He whipped out his cell phone, got the number for approach control from directory assistance, and then got vectors for an ASR approach, with only needle, ball and airspeed, while somehow holding a flash light! Another had the bottom skin peel off the outboard left wing after dodging thunderstorms (a little too close I think), and landed without incident. When we got there two hours later he was fast asleep on the couch. We had several engines quit. No problem. The pilots just flew the airplane and got it on the ground. I've never worked with a finer bunch of guys.
Most failures were of the partial power type. Engine driven fuel pumps (an inop electric boost pump is a no-go item), turbocharger/waste gate failures, or mags grounding out. Nothing really critical.
We flew the airplanes hard. They were never designed for that type of service.
My BIG RULES were as follows.
1. NO INTERSECTION TAKE OFFS (grounds for immediate dismissal)
2. Do not attempt a single engine go around with the gear and flaps hanging out.
3. Never start a single engine approach if there is the possibility of a miss. Go somewhere else.
4. Never get below blue line until you can glide to the runway.
5. If ya gotta crash, do it at an airport where they sell alcohol. Airports like that always have fire trucks, and you may want a drink after talking to the FAA.
I hammered it home that EVERY take off we did was at max gross, and to plan accordingly. Study the performance charts!
My point is that a well trained, emotionally mature and proficient pilot can handle just about any inflight emergency, if the airplane is not flown out of limits.
When flown by the book, the 401/402 will do a better job than most any other piston twin on one engine. When training new pilots on the type I spent A LOT of time on the ground, in the cockpit, hammering the engine out drill.
1. Pitch level and stand on the rudder
2. Both throttles full forward
3. Flaps up
4. Gear up
5. Identify
6. Verify
7. Feather
8. Speed Vyse
Afterwards we would go fly. After the first hour, which was used to just get familiar with the a/c, the new guy almost never flew the thing on two engines again. That he EVER had two running was primarily due to the fact that he had to demonstrate a normal ILS on the check ride.
My new guys never got less than 10 hours of single engine work, ILS, circling approaches,
non-precision straight in's, engine cuts after lift off, on crosswind, downwind and final, on the runway, the whole nine yards!
For most of them it was their first "real" flying job. They came to us with 1200 total time and maybe 200 hours of multi engine experience. The best sticks all had experience as multi engine instructors.
They all got the same drill for their IFR re-current as well.
The cost of cracked cylinders was enormous, but cheaper than loosing a pilot!
We had some failures, but never lost a pilot. One guy had a total electrical failure in hard ball IFR wx at night. He whipped out his cell phone, got the number for approach control from directory assistance, and then got vectors for an ASR approach, with only needle, ball and airspeed, while somehow holding a flash light! Another had the bottom skin peel off the outboard left wing after dodging thunderstorms (a little too close I think), and landed without incident. When we got there two hours later he was fast asleep on the couch. We had several engines quit. No problem. The pilots just flew the airplane and got it on the ground. I've never worked with a finer bunch of guys.
Most failures were of the partial power type. Engine driven fuel pumps (an inop electric boost pump is a no-go item), turbocharger/waste gate failures, or mags grounding out. Nothing really critical.
We flew the airplanes hard. They were never designed for that type of service.
My BIG RULES were as follows.
1. NO INTERSECTION TAKE OFFS (grounds for immediate dismissal)
2. Do not attempt a single engine go around with the gear and flaps hanging out.
3. Never start a single engine approach if there is the possibility of a miss. Go somewhere else.
4. Never get below blue line until you can glide to the runway.
5. If ya gotta crash, do it at an airport where they sell alcohol. Airports like that always have fire trucks, and you may want a drink after talking to the FAA.
I hammered it home that EVERY take off we did was at max gross, and to plan accordingly. Study the performance charts!
My point is that a well trained, emotionally mature and proficient pilot can handle just about any inflight emergency, if the airplane is not flown out of limits.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Machoverspeed.
Onya, they were very very fortunate pilots to have you as a boss.
I'll bet very few of them had any trouble progressing through their careers.
Your post/method should be a template for anyone using these types.
Onya, they were very very fortunate pilots to have you as a boss.
I'll bet very few of them had any trouble progressing through their careers.
Your post/method should be a template for anyone using these types.
