propiser

Sounds like a costly mistake for the operators.

9kBud

The 402 doesn't like low speeds with icing, but which airplane does? A bunch of us at Cape have stalled the airplane in the flare at relatively high speeds, but are mindful of the extra speed required when iced up, which makes it more of a nonevent.

Yoda2

The status of these aircraft has been known about for years. Decades ago I was advised by a flight instructor that just because you see an aircraft with de ice or anti ice equipment installed it does not mean it is certified FIKI or even for an inadvertent encounter; unless it is listed as approved in the aircraft data, and of course maintained. I was told many aircraft came from the factories, or were later retrofitted with all or partial systems; yet the affected aircraft were never certified for icing encounters. I always believed it was a potentially dangerous situation for the uninformed operators. After reading the Letter of Concern and the AD I think the FAA is on the right track. I do feel bad for some operators though hopefully all stakeholders can work together for formulate a solution having the least financial impact. An other related issue I have is the 15 Kt deal... Adding an extra 15 Kts for ice is not necessarily like adding the more common 5 Kts margin for the wife and kids... The effects of weight and minor gusts are relatively predictable, while the affects of ice accretion are not so much, hence the hard landings, Etc. Not to mention the runway the extra speed will eat up, if it is available... There could be other potential issues with the extra 15 Kts as well such as possibly a landing light speed limitation.

Ewfflyer

I have 2000hrs flying 135 freight in C310's, mainly the "r" model. They were just as good as most if the modern frames i fly. Using some common sense of adding speed when you have some ice on is a no brainer. I fly one currently, and luckily his serial number wasn't affected.

Another way the Fed's try to fix something that is really punishing the majority for a very minor issue. Estimated 1.5 accidents a year, 1.2 deaths per year.....really?

Aviator89

the original post has a link to a pdf file.

Aviator89

does the 337 even have boots? I have never seen one. Dont think a single 337 was ever FIKI in the first place, so for that its automatically just not in the right group of aircraft. Its a twin, but never FIKI capable.
Thats the centerline thrust twin engine, weird looking thing. Like a cross between a P-38 and a 206

8ballfreight

I used to fly a 402b and I didn't think it was approved back then...but the FAA is right, we did anyway.

JamesNoBrakes

How many deaths is ok? How many accidents (when they are attributed to the same causes)? I'm not defending the FAA actions in the sense that this is the only way to "fix" the problem, but most operators would be very hesitant/resistant to put training and other fixes in place themselves to prevent the accidents. It's incredibly hard to convince someone that spending a little more $$$ here and now will save many times that down the road when there's an accident. No matter how culture improves, this is always an extremely hard sell to stockholders and corporations that are interested in the bottom line right now. Yes, some would do the right thing, the "good" ones, but others would not. Unfortunately organizations like the FAA don't have the power to revoke someone's operating certificate just because they are one of the "poorer" operators, unless there are specific gross regulatory violations. If they are meeting the regulation requirements, what options are there? What if they are not meeting the regulation requirements, but it's impossible to prove? It's great that there are pilots out there that are absolutely unwilling to place themselves in danger and will fly the aircraft as it was intended, but there are ones that won't, and if they are flying the public or carrying their property, there has to be some mechanism to protect the public.

Ewfflyer

So it's ok to shut down everyone else because of a few bad apples? There are always a "few" unfortunate accidents out there, with many variables attached. You have to know your equipment and it's limitations, that's on the pilot, regardless of who you work for.

We operated 9 C310's, and never had an "icing" incident or accident. Sadly, there were two fatal accidents, both CFIT in low IFR. One was many years before I hired on, a guy tried getting back to home base on a NDB approach, hit the woods 1/4sm sw of the Rwy. Then 3yrs after I left, the owner was flying a gps app and kept looking for the Rwy past the MAP.....hit the hill on the opposite side of the Rwy. So by your logic should we ban all non-precision approaches because a few people consciously decided to push the limits and/or blatantly ignore all rules? Might as well make all C310's operate with the gear out, as we have all seen the videos of them landing with one dangling in the wind too. Where does it stop?

Same goes in cars, but yet we try and solve the problem of dumb@&! Drivers And add stability control, abs, traction, etc..... Resulting in even poorer driving skills a use now you have this magic crutch. One day people might wise up and realize we can't have a "zero" accident and death rate, it is impossible, even when you try and take the human element out of it. If anything, I see worse judgement now than when we didn't have all these nice electronic systems. Training and experience, it just can't be substituted to build judgement and skill.

USMCFLYR

No - the difference is that those two airplanes had all of the operating equipment and were certified for the operations they were conducting and they made a mistake. The issue discussed here is people flying the aircraft in conditions that are not legal or that the aircraft are not properly equipped for. Two different scenarios.

Maybe you should lobby against the lawyers (and juries) who bring the lawsuits (settlements/judgments) to bear when some pilot does something stupid in their airplane and then they (or the plaintiffs) try and sue everything entity under the sun for the mistakes made by the PILOT.

Regulatory agencies have a tough job of trying to balance the ball and it is never popular with all involved. I'm sure if you were charge and implemented some of your better ideas - there would be some yahoo on a web board somewhere decrying the unjustness of your decisions.

You're right - there will likely never be a 0% mishap rate for any length of time. People make mistakes, machines fail, acts of god come out of nowhere and smite thee down, but it is the premise of every safety program that you STRIVE for that 0% rate (within the fiscal constraints set of course )