Caravan Down: Lake Erie Accident

[Guest 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.

[Guest graunch1]

The latest AIN newsletter had an accident report of a C208 flying in known icing conditions in Colorado. the 1,800 hr pilot lost control and spiralled in. The Pirep was for light rime icing and the report even comments about the poor ability of the 208 to handle ice.

[Trader]

WOW, I gotta keep up with this site more regularly.

 

Anyway, to add my 2 cents---I don't have a real issue with the single engine (Caravan/PC12) ops. If the regulators decide to allow then so be it.

 

However, I think the most prudent way to examine the issue would be to compare those two single engine machines with the twins that operate under the same regs.

 

I think it is fair to say that the scenario of a single with an engine failure will likely end catastrophicaly. The odds are NOT in their favour. This is especially true considering that most of these turbine singles are operated in remote areas where a 'forced approach' leads the poor soul(s) to either rugged rock, cold water or a christmas tree stand. I don't know the stall speeds of the van or the PC12 but I would gues them to be above 70 or 80 knots--in other words when you hit you're moving fast!

 

In the end the debate essentially resides around the concept of degrees or levels of safety. Can a single engine meet the same levels of safety and redundancy that a twin has? No, because the loss of the engine results in the loss of ALL power and an accident. In a twin this is not necessarly the case. The real question is "Can we live and accept the decreased level of safety that exist with a single AND..it is a big AND, is the degree of that decrease in safety small enough to be of no concern."

 

Turbines are VERY reliable today and the stats prove that. SO this is a difficult arguement and one that is fought in 'shades' with no black or white answers. Both sides have compelling arguements. We could argue that going from 2 to 3 man cockpits decreased safety as well and that the regulators should move back in that direction. The Sioux City crash and countless others PROVE (to me anyway) that a third man in some situations saves the day. I'm sure we could come up with dozens of such examples and argue that we have decreased the levels of safety for one reason or another.

 

The end debate, as I said, should centre around the degree of risk that is acceptable!

 

Final Note: for the TC types on the forum- I am sure you can't even agree on this topic

But I do find the interest from TC in this accident interesting. Georgian runs a VERY GOOD operation, at least compared to every other 703/704 operator in this country and yet they get their OC pulled in what, IMO, was public relations stunt on the part of TC. Yet there are dozens of shady operators out there who never get touched. anyway....now I AM ranting

[Charles W.]

Yesterday on the local news channel there were pictures of the aircraft as it now looks after salvage.

 

Taking into consideration the damage that may have been done during the lifting of the wreckage and transporting it, it is still obvious that the impact forces were high.

 

Another item caught my attention, there was a short part in the pictures where at least two of the prop blades were shown, from the brief view of the propellor it did not seem to have been under high RPM on contact with the ice, at least it did not appear to have been bent under high power.

 

Did anyone else get a better look at the prop?

 

Chas W.

[north60]

charles, i think your statement on the prop was right. I also think they should no longer be allowed to recover wrecked a/c. let's see

1.they dragged it across the lake floor to get into deep enough water for the salvage vessel

2.they slung it out with I can only guess was about 15k pounds of water in the fuselage. anyone crush a beer can lately.

3. reports were that it was upright on the lakefloor with the fuselage relatively uncompromised.

4.if there were significant deceleration force on the fuselage, in wouldn't have pieces of the fuselage 30 feet long by 1 ft wide

5. Saw the remains of another a/c recovered by our tsb. a super cub in the north, that flipped while water taxiing with no other damage.(DY)when they lifted it out they did not cut the upper/lower wing fabric or the fuselage. went from salvageable to a twisted piece of crap

 

My 2 cents

[Charles W.]

Yeh , I normally would not get to involved in accidents like this before the facts were released after the investigation was completed.

 

But there were some reports made by the media in the first few days that were never mentioned or explained since then...... there were several reports of the pilot having made an emergency transmission on his radio.......

 

Then there is the wreckage with pictures of the prop with one blade that appears to be in the feathered position and the other one at flight pitch, no sign of the third blade in the pictures......... it was the lask of apparent rotational bending of the blades that caught my attention.

 

I guess we will just await the final report.

 

Bad , bad type of accident with so many people suffering from the results.

 

C. W.

[Guest Airplay]

I don't think I would comment on the TSB's wreckage recovery unless you were there. I can't imagine it was easy to recover that wreck and I can't imagine the family of the crash victims were too concerned about the airplane. I'm sure they were more concerned with recovering the bodies.

[twotter]

Recovering an aircraft from the water is a fairly simple task if you know what you are doing. It can however become a nightmare when you get someone who doesn't know the basics trying to do it. Many of the important points have been pointed out here.

 

If the aircraft is salvaged properly, the investigation will have far more clues as to what happened than if they just pull up a ball of twisted and broken metal. One would think that floating it with airbags and then lifting it slowly by either the prop or wing lift points while letting the water drain might have helped in minimizing any salvage damage that might have occured.