Caravan Down: Lake Erie Accident

[iflynkd]

My personal feeling is that the OC suspension is more TC trying to act as if they know what they're doing, as opposed to having done something effective before. This is what, #3 for Georgian and their Caravans? It's just frustrating that even with history, it took the deaths of 10 for them to do something.

[CTD]

Sadly, it always takes a slew of deaths to change anything – and not just in aviation. Humans are notoriously bad at self-preservation.

 

Though I work for TC, I have no involvement in this particular accident, and no knowledge of it other than what I’ve heard in the media like you. I don’t know why enforcement action was taken, and don’t want to speculate on cause, but I’ll jump into the single engine / pilot debate.

 

Personally, I think the argument over single vs. twin when the twin won’t fly on one is ridiculous. That’s more like a one-and-a-half. If we’re talking single vs. a true twin with good OEI performance, then there is no argument. I don’t think that single-engined ANYTHING should be allowed to fly commercial passengers in IMC, period. My humble opinion.

 

Where I have a bigger problem is with single pilot, and that’s worse when coupled with single engine. How this ever got through regulation is beyond my scope of comprehension (actually, I guess I do know how it got through, but that’s another issue). There is far more risk of the pilot screwing up, and having that second person (provided that person is not an incompetent mannequin to make it legal) acting as a safety is gold.

 

If this accident was indeed caused by ice, the second pilot MAY have actually called bu11shit and saved their *****. Who knows. Same in Winnipeg where the dude ran out of gas. Same in Newfoundland when the guy descended below his minimum altitude while troubleshooting the engine problem, and lost his glide range. I don’t think any of these guys did anything they thought would result in an accident, but it did.

 

Want to find out how risky it is? Try doing it for an oil company.

 

Problem now is that industry has gone out and bought all these airplanes and set up entire flight departments based on these single pilot / single engine rules. There are going to have to be a lot more bodies pulled out of the water before it changes.

 

.

[Schooner69]

CTD posted:

 

[i]"I don’t think that single-engined ANYTHING should be allowed to fly commercial passengers in IMC, period. My humble opinion.

 

Where I have a bigger problem is with single pilot, and that’s worse when coupled with single engine. How this ever got through regulation is beyond my scope of comprehension (actually, I guess I do know how it got through, but that’s another issue)." [/i]

 

 

COMMENT

 

Commercial SE IFR: I personally have no problem with SE IFR; even six years with TC didn't change my mind. The SE/TE question should be left up to the market place, not the personal opinions and prejudices of the decision makers in TC. (You've probably met some folks in the hallways there with some pretty firm ideas....which is OK as long as they're based in reality and fact, not "when I was a boy..) Again, I make reference to the safety stats re: Singles/Twins.

 

Single Pilot: I have flown a fair bit of single-pilot and two-pilot IFR into low-density and high-density airports, including the "Golden Triangle" of the NE US. While there is not doubt that two pilots ease the workload (and gives you somebody to talk to while cooling your heels in the FBO (;>0)), preparation and competance will make the same trip flown single pilot a non-event. I personally preferred the single pilot trips - but that would be as a result of my background. I know folks to whom single pilot operations are an anathema.

 

As was stated in a previous post, some people are comfortable with SE IFR and some aren't. Those who aren't should probably stay away from it because that discomfort will interfere with their performance.

[Charles W.]

We of course all have the right to our own opinions on the Single engine vs multi engine IFR / over water/ night issues.

 

I'm solidly in CTD' s corner on this one..... Single engine vs multi engine that will fly on one is a no brainer.

 

As to the single pilot vs two pilot IFR discussion once agian I feel the two pilot crew adds to safety and efficiency of flight operations.

 

Some of you may feel I am an #### due to my resentment towards a few in the regulator but on the subject of flight safety, background experience and an overall record of performance I feel my opinions have a lot of merit.

 

As an aside to this discussion and to support my thoughts, I do a fair amount of flying in Euro Control airspace, I will not depart IFR unless I have my partner with me as a fellow crew member due to the work load may get beyond my ability to safely cope with unforseen circumstances....My fellow crew member is a French Airline Pilot and is far better than me in Euro Control airspace......

 

When we fly in Arabic airspace both of us have problems trying to understand their system. :up:

 

When we fly in African airspace, no one knows whats going on. :up:

 

Rev Chas. W.

[Guest Airplay]

The SE/TE question should be left up to the market place, not the personal opinions and prejudices of the decision makers in TC.

 

You are assuming that the "market place" is defined by the operator. Its not. It is defined by the end user...the passenger.

 

As was stated in a previous post, some people are comfortable with SE IFR and some aren't. Those who aren't should probably stay away from it because that discomfort will interfere with their performance.

 

These "people" you speak of, again are the operators and not the passengers. If the average passenger was honestly informed of the possible consequences of boarding a single engine aircraft in IFR conditions I personally think many would refuse. Unfortunately, most passengers have faith in the system. Many think that if the "government" allows the airline to operate, it MUST be safe...after all doesn't the government look out for us?

 

 

So in my opinion, the market place is not being served appropriately by this arbitrary rule that is driven by the economics of the operator and not the safety of the "market place".

 

I would be happy to board a twin otter on that trip and pay 50% more than to jump on a single engine airplane in IFR conditions....

 

Again...this is not a commentary on the actual cause of the crash, but I think this discussion on S/E ops is valid and important.

[Schooner69]

##### posted: (in blue)

 

"You are assuming that the "market place" is defined by the operator. Its not. It is defined by the end user...the passenger."

 

I concur and I was not assuming anything...the market place IS the end user, not the operator. That is whom I meant.

 

 

"These "people" you speak of, again are the operators and not the passengers."

 

 

That may be a true statement, but the "people" to whom I was referring were pilots..

 

 

"Again...this is not a commentary on the actual cause of the crash, but I think this discussion on S/E ops is valid and important."

 

Concur....the sooner we get everyone agreeing that SE IFR flight is as safe as TE piston IFR, the better. (;>0)

 

Now, if the discussion were SE turbine vs TE turbine, there is no argument; TE would probably be safer. However, the SE turbine safety stats would be very close to the TE stats and then you could do something like a cost/benefit analysis and see if the added risk was worth it. It's like the analysis that's made when deciding to fly somewhere or take the train. The train is the safest way to go, but your cost/benefit/risk analysis dictates: "take the plane, stupid!".

 

Now, it's time to totter upstairs for my gin and geritol..

 

Take care, folks. :hide:

[Guest Airplay]

Thanks for the clarifications Schooner69. I apologize if I misinterpreted your statements.

 

Concur....the sooner we get everyone agreeing that SE IFR flight is as safe as TE piston IFR, the better.

 

We have to be careful not to compare apples to oranges. What is under scrutiny here is commerical ops. If we use absolute numbers and take private ops into consideration, twin piston operation has much more risk according to the stats.

 

I really don't think twin pistons, especially those that aren't transport category, work into this equation. So Barons or overweight Navajos are irrelevant. I think we're talking strictly turbine singles that fit into the special IFR commerical ops category.

 

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.

 

I wonder if TC would consider relaxing the requirment for 2 navigation systems so easily?

[Schooner69]

##### posted:

 

"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."

 

COMMENT

 

I don't have access to those stats and it would be interesting to know how the SEs stack up against the TEs during that time frame. And to include engine failure incidents/accidents only...down here, we've had our fair share of airplanes find the ground with ALL engines running!

 

CTD: any chance you could winkle that out?

 

As far as the requirement to have at least two engines and demonstrate..etc, I think that may have occured by default. As you're well aware, all FAR 23 basically required was that in the event of a failure of one engine in a twin engine aicrcraft. the other one had to keep going! Some of the twins with which we're familiar weren't even guaranteed to climb on one engine until the aircraft was cleaned up. When subsequent and stricter FARs evolved, I don't think they envisioned that a powerful single engine turbine aircraft would ever be considered for passenger transport.

 

It's five bells and time for the G and G again!

 

Take care, folks.

[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.

 

:shock: :shock: :shock: