Caravan Down: Lake Erie Accident

[N2]

I say no single pilot IFR and no single engine IFR while carring passengers. I'd be damned if I would let one of my family go on a flight in bad weather in a single with 1 pilot....or good weather for that matter. Single pilot IFR as well as single engine should be banned in commercial operations period!

 

[Elvis]

My only concern is single engine is being approved over water.

 

[Airplay]

Schooner69,

Just in case it wasn't understood (correct me if I'm wrong) "transport category" aircraft are FAR 25, not FAR 23 which are normal category. There is no requirment for more than one engine in FAR 23, nor is there a requirement for single engine performance of any kind....

 

[twotter]

What does FAR 25 have to do with a C208??? Now you are talking apples and oranges..

If you are going to compare the SE vs TE airplanes, at least use ones in the same category. To the best of my knowledge, there probably aren't too many singles that are under FAR25.

 

[Airplay]

twotter,

You really need to start reading the entire thread in order to understand my statement(s). Cherry picking snippets without researching the background isn't very constructive.....

And that's right....there are NO single engine transport category airplanes. That was my point. Just single engine airplanes that get to operate like a transport category airplane because of (in my opinion) a bad operating rule that allows single engine commercial IFR ops.

 

[twotter]

You really need to start reading the entire thread in order to understand my statement(s). Cherry picking snippets without researching the background isn't very constructive.....

And that's right....there are NO single engine transport category airplanes. That was my point. Just single engine airplanes that get to operate like a transport category airplane because of (in my opinion) a bad operating rule that allows single engine commercial IFR ops.

But I'm not Cherry picking here.. This whole thread started about an accident of a single engine airplane operated under 703. It further evolved into a comparison between singles and twins that operate under 703. The first reference to anything in 705, was when I mentioned the driftdown charts for an F-27.

The first comparison of Singles to 704/704 airplanes was done by you:

So... if you consider only commercial IFR 704 or 705 ops, single engine aircraft have quite a miserable track record in their short presence here in Canada. Its no wonder that one of the requirements for certification in the transport category, and airplane MUST have at least 2 engines and demonstrate the capability to climb with one engine out in all phases.

Single engined airplanes are under 703, and therefore do not operate, nor are required to operate like a transport category airplane. If they did, they would have to come under 705. Therefore you are in fact attempting to compare apples and oranges.

It is you, my wee friend who must start reading the entire thread, and after, must learn to accept the context in which they were written.

 

[Airplay]

You are still missing the point. When comparisons are made between Cessna Caravans and overloaded Navajos or "psuedo-twins" like a Twin Comanche or a Travelaire, operting under non-commercial rules, the stats show that single engine turbine aircraft are superior. Nobody is contesting that....

But...if you compare the Cessna Caravan/Pilatus PC-12 with real commercial twins such as those operated under 704/705 rules, the single engine aircraft have dismal records.

Can I make it any clearer than that?

The FAR 25/23 references came out in the wash and I just offered some clarifications.

Single engined airplanes are under 703, and therefore do not operate, nor are required to operate like a transport category airplane.

Thats RIGHT! So why allow them to mimic a transport category (FAR 25) airplane by allowing them to operate commerical IFR? FAR 23 airplanes don't have the inherent safety that FAR 25 aircraft have for high risk operation, and the Canadian flying public should be made aware of that fact.

Having said all that.....again, I'm not declaring the accident in question to be a result of engine failure. Only time will tell. But as I said before, this accident will (and has) raised the spectre of single engine IFR ops.

 

[Schooner69]

My head hurts....

 

[graunch1]

I guess the question here is what happened to the Caravan, how can lessons from theaccident be used to prevent similar accidents by changes in training and possibly regulations.

The blather about 703 vs 705 vs FAR 23 vs FAR 25 or whatever is not an issue here. Nor is endless disertations quoted from a set of these books by said person who is on the fringe of aviation both from an operational point and as a maintainer

 

[Airplay]

The blather about 703 vs 705 vs FAR 23 vs FAR 25 or whatever is not an issue here. Nor is endless disertations quoted from a set of these books by said person who is on the fringe of aviation both from an operational point and as a maintainer

A nothing statement from a nothing post that adds...nothing. Except maybe a slanted (and inaccurate) insult. Haven't we learned anything in the last week?

The commerical ops standards are what enable operators to run single engine commerical IFR. And Graunch1 deems them irrelevant to the thread. Thanks for coming out.....

 

[graunch1]

The irrelevence is your take on the issue

 

[twotter]

Well said Graunch1..

Trying to talk/debate with this person is a waste of good air. It doesn't matter what you say, he'll twist it to find something wrong.

What you said about finding what happened and trying to prevent future accidents is bang on.

As for the crap of what regs this airplane or that airplane come under, well that's for another discussion and we should have never got off track like that. If someone wants to discuss that, a new thread should be started.

 

[Airplay]

Oh please....you two are the biggest drama queens I've ever seen. No wait...Chuck makes it three. Talk about over-reacting....

twotter,

I have tried to present my opinions in a civil and informative manner and you still do nothing but complain and insult. If you don't want to talk about my opinion or just don't understand it, say so.

As for the crap of what regs this airplane or that airplane come under, well that's for another discussion and we should have never got off track like that. If someone wants to discuss that, a new thread should be started.

Well..considering that if single engine commercial IFR was still not authorized under the CARs, 10 people might still be alive. I'd say its well ON track. This just illustrates how ludicrous your claims are or that you really don't understand the whole issue.

Don't try to tell me what I can or can't introduce into the discussion. I'm sure you haven't been injured by anything I type. You need to step down off the cross. Its getting old....

 

[Kyle]

Please stick to the original topic. The next upgrade that we do of the forums will provide you the ability to ignore users and not see their threads. Until that time, please stick to the topic and only the topic. There is no need to start the head-butting again. Any further discussion that does not relate directly with the original topic will be deleted.

 

[CD]

Well, let's try this. It's not related directly to the original topic, but something pretty darn close.

From the January 26th edition of Air Safety Week:

Date/Site
14 Jan. 1321Z Goose Bay Newfdld
Aircraft & Registration
C208B Caravan of Labrador Awys
Circumstances
LAL523 pitched up sharply after autopilot deselected and elevator trim found to be jammed. Landed flapless.
Preliminary Analysis
C-FPEX enrt Nain to Postville. Declared emergency and diverted to Goose. Icing of both actuator shafts.