Caravan crash in Ohio
12-10-2007, 05:05 PM
#13
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,253
Originally Posted by FlyCMI
I am going to go ahead and have to disagree..... Yeah..... (in my best Bill Lumburgh voice). AirNet is not your mom and pop 135 company. As a former pilot there, i can attest that the training there is just as good as the training I am getting at my LCC 121 major airline driving a 737. I would rather commute on an AirNet learjet with pilots who have been there, done that and have the t-shirt rather than your ERJ/CRJ with a 500 hour wonder kid as the FO at your regional of choice.
As far as the loading and fuel quality. From an AirNet source close to the investigation, we know that the Jet A-1 (they use phillips pre-mix jet a) was tested that day and that the caravan was sprayed with 150 gallons of Type 1 4 mins prior to recieving his TAKEOFF clearance. BTW the Type 1 was also analyized post accident and found to be in spec. As for the loading, AirNet weighs every bin as it comes out of the sort so I don't think it was a weight issue and with 1270 hours in a Caravan, if it is underweight, it really doesn't matter where it goes, it will fly.
Why don't we quit monday morning QB'ing this in respect to Mike and James and those of us who knew them and let the NTSB do their job.
As far as the loading and fuel quality. From an AirNet source close to the investigation, we know that the Jet A-1 (they use phillips pre-mix jet a) was tested that day and that the caravan was sprayed with 150 gallons of Type 1 4 mins prior to recieving his TAKEOFF clearance. BTW the Type 1 was also analyized post accident and found to be in spec. As for the loading, AirNet weighs every bin as it comes out of the sort so I don't think it was a weight issue and with 1270 hours in a Caravan, if it is underweight, it really doesn't matter where it goes, it will fly.
Why don't we quit monday morning QB'ing this in respect to Mike and James and those of us who knew them and let the NTSB do their job.
12-13-2007, 05:36 PM
#14
On Reserve
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Former Freight Doggy
Posts: 17
AirNet is not a fractional. They Aren't NetJets. I don't think anyone would want to ride in a canned out learjet or caravan 
I don't think the airplane in question was iced up. From what I heard the wearther should not have iced the plane up after it got deiced with 150 gallons four mins before the takeoff roll.
I don't think the airplane in question was iced up. From what I heard the wearther should not have iced the plane up after it got deiced with 150 gallons four mins before the takeoff roll.
12-14-2007, 07:49 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: pilot
Posts: 111
that aircraft did not have an icing problem
something else is causing this particular aircraft to fall out of the sky there have been too many that did not have ice on them that crashed and killed people
why are there v/g's full span on the aft part of the stabilizor?
does that mean there is an upload on the stab?
something else is causing this particular aircraft to fall out of the sky there have been too many that did not have ice on them that crashed and killed people
why are there v/g's full span on the aft part of the stabilizor?
does that mean there is an upload on the stab?
12-14-2007, 02:46 PM
#16
Moderator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
Originally Posted by 185flier
that aircraft did not have an icing problem
something else is causing this particular aircraft to fall out of the sky there have been too many that did not have ice on them that crashed and killed people
why are there v/g's full span on the aft part of the stabilizor?
does that mean there is an upload on the stab?
something else is causing this particular aircraft to fall out of the sky there have been too many that did not have ice on them that crashed and killed people
why are there v/g's full span on the aft part of the stabilizor?
does that mean there is an upload on the stab?
Last edited by Cubdriver; 12-15-2007 at 08:52 AM.
12-14-2007, 03:22 PM
#17
Moderator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
Originally Posted by FlyCMI
I don't think the airplane in question was iced up. From what I heard the weather should not have iced the plane up after it got deiced with 150 gallons four mins before the takeoff roll.
Last edited by Cubdriver; 12-14-2007 at 05:30 PM.
12-14-2007, 07:06 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: pilot
Posts: 111
in an accident in alaska there was a lot of testimony at trial from not only the plainteffs but also cessna engineers that said the stab on the caravan with aft c/g within limits required a uplifting stabilizor which has an airflow adhesion issue hence the v/g's to try and fix it
this airplane has an uploaded stab
think of stall recovery
it is opposite of what you were trained
it is not ice
this airplane has an uploaded stab
think of stall recovery
it is opposite of what you were trained
it is not ice
12-15-2007, 09:03 AM
#20
Moderator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
As I said above I was not there when Caravan was designed and my comments were meant to be general. However it turns out that one of the participants in Caravan Pilot Forum claimed to be present during the original design phase- "frogo6" claimed VGs were added to Caravan to assist in spin recovery. It is pure speculation what caused this particular crash. Here is a link to Caravan Pilot Forum.
CPF thread
CPF thread
Last edited by Cubdriver; 12-15-2007 at 01:39 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
