Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-04-2014, 08:24 PM   #1  
Bracing for Fallacies
Thread Starter
 
block30's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Has a DC-9 Type
Posts: 3,217
Default No Known Ice for Twin Cessnas..!!

Wow! How many part 135 and 91 operators and individuals are getting whacked by this??? I wonder if TKS retrofits would make twin Cessnas legal again?? Of course that would mean $$$$.

AD Enforces Old Cessna Twin Icing Service Bulletin - AVweb flash Article

The FAA says an airworthiness directive banning most early Cessna twins (except 337s) from flight into known icing is necessary because too many pilots were ignoring a mandatory service bulletin issued by the company in 1997 that says the same thing. Cessna sent out the bulletin after it became clear that even a little ice on almost 7,000 of the twins (PDF) could seriously affect the slow-speed handling, resulting in a lot of hard landings. The problem persisted after the service bulletin and the FAA issued the AD to actually make it illegal to fly the aircraft into known ice. The AD affects 4,200 aircraft in the U.S., more than a third of which have anti-icing gear. It becomes effective April 7, 2014.

The AD mandates installation of a panel placard that also requires pilots to carry an extra 15 knots on approach if they encounter inadvertent icing. Several operators protested the rule, saying that with the proper training pilots could safely operate the aircraft in known icing. They also said the limitations could cost them millions of dollars in lost business, but the FAA rejected those arguments. It based its decision to issue the AD on analysis of 51 accidents over 30 years. Based on the assessment, the FAA says it believes the AD will prevent 1.5 accidents a year and save 1.2 lives a year.
block30 is offline  
Old 03-04-2014, 09:11 PM   #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
9kBud's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: yes
Posts: 319
Default

Hmm, that's all I have to say for now.
9kBud is offline  
Old 03-04-2014, 09:56 PM   #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Aviator89's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 288
Default

hmm is right. Lots of 135 operators out there just got a big wrench throw in the face.
On another note, do older boots have a lot of ice bridging issues? I mean with modern boots, bridging almost never happens. But the fact that even a small amount of ice causes low speed handling issues, shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. I mean, its ice screwing with the leading edge and upper camber right? If a little bit of frost causes take off accidents/performance issues, why wouldn't this cause other handling issues? But kudos to the FAA, IMHO. If people aren't safely flying the aircraft consistently in a specific condition, then something needs to change. Spotting the root cause is good for now, but a longer term solution is needed. TKS retrofits and other de-ice, likely heated elements like Kelly Aerospace "therma wing" comes to mind.
Aviator89 is offline  
Old 03-04-2014, 10:01 PM   #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Aviator89's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 288
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 9kBud View Post
Hmm, that's all I have to say for now.
how will this mess with Cape Air's ops??? Lots of ops in icing right? Not year round icing issues, but certainly enough to hamper some fall/winter/spring operations.

Edit: nevermind, 402C is not on the list.
Aviator89 is offline  
Old 03-05-2014, 06:14 AM   #5  
Bracing for Fallacies
Thread Starter
 
block30's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Has a DC-9 Type
Posts: 3,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aviator89 View Post
how will this mess with Cape Air's ops??? Lots of ops in icing right? Not year round icing issues, but certainly enough to hamper some fall/winter/spring operations.

Edit: nevermind, 402C is not on the list.
Hey, where do you see a complete list of affected airframes/models? I'm trying to find one. Thanks!

PS.....so booted Caravans are still FIKI???
block30 is offline  
Old 03-05-2014, 06:52 AM   #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
thump's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: ERJ-170 CA
Posts: 312
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by block30 View Post
Hey, where do you see a complete list of affected airframes/models? I'm trying to find one. Thanks!

PS.....so booted Caravans are still FIKI???
Here is the list. It's only certain models. With an apparent skew towards early model years.

The caravan is a single and not on the list.
thump is offline  
Old 03-05-2014, 07:13 AM   #7  
Bracing for Fallacies
Thread Starter
 
block30's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Has a DC-9 Type
Posts: 3,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thump View Post
Here is the list. It's only certain models. With an apparent skew towards early model years.

The caravan is a single and not on the list.
Thanks for providing that list! I just say that about the Van because I have spoken directly to Van drivers and read a lot about the Caravan being not so good in the ice. So I am surprised that the twin Cessnas got nixed, but booted Caravans have not (as far as I know.)
block30 is offline  
Old 03-05-2014, 07:18 AM   #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
thump's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: ERJ-170 CA
Posts: 312
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by block30 View Post
Thanks for providing that list! I just say that about the Van because I have spoken directly to Van drivers and read a lot about the Caravan being not so good in the ice. So I am surprised that the twin Cessnas got nixed, but booted Caravans have not (as far as I know.)
It's more complex than "no" to booted twins and "yes" to booted caravans. For example, the early model Cessna 340s (booted) are affected by the AD, but the later model (also booted) 340s are not affected. For the AD, the FAA was looking at things like heated vs. alcohol windshield de-ice, pitot/stall heat, prop deice (or lack thereof).
thump is offline  
Old 03-05-2014, 08:35 AM   #9  
Bracing for Fallacies
Thread Starter
 
block30's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Has a DC-9 Type
Posts: 3,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thump View Post
It's more complex than "no" to booted twins and "yes" to booted caravans. For example, the early model Cessna 340s (booted) are affected by the AD, but the later model (also booted) 340s are not affected. For the AD, the FAA was looking at things like heated vs. alcohol windshield de-ice, pitot/stall heat, prop deice (or lack thereof).
Hmmm.....I believe that the Cessna 310Rs and 402B I used fly are now all nixed, and they had hot plates, heated stall vanes, etc. Not arguing with you, I do appreciate the input. Just very surprised.

PS I see the link in the article of affected planes. My bad! Thanks for your patience. Also curious why the C337 was good to go entirely.
block30 is offline  
Old 03-05-2014, 08:47 AM   #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
thump's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: ERJ-170 CA
Posts: 312
Default

More detail here on the reason why:

http://www.twincessna.org/pdf/AWCTwi...cing012011.pdf
thump is offline  
 
 
 

 
Post Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Climategate Winged Wheeler Hangar Talk 545 01-05-2020 06:57 PM
Cooler ice suggestions detpilot Regional 52 10-16-2011 09:09 AM
Interesting Stall Information tzadik Regional 110 02-16-2009 09:19 PM
Ice in GA Airplanes BoilerWings Hangar Talk 14 01-25-2008 03:56 PM
Ice kills Mustang PMeyer Hangar Talk 6 01-29-2007 09:41 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:59 PM.