Was that Caiden's old airplane?

Yes


Always brightens my day to see a storied legend turning back the hands of time. All the sweat & money, love really, to make it happen. Of course none of that can begin to rationalize the loss if passengers or bystanders get smoked when aging aircraft component failure, inadequate system redundancies or exemption from modern airworthiness standards becomes causal. Sat over a beer and watched cruise ship excursion groups lined up on the dock boarding Beaver & Otter floatplanes at Ketchikan a couple years ago. All jammed in there, faces peering from the tiny windows, getting ready to see a glacier. Remember thinking, are you people *&^%#@! nuts?

The price of total safety is a lot of wasted opportunities. I found the floatplane trip into Misty Fjord well worth the risk.

https://www.adn.com/bush-pilot/artic...rd/2015/09/26/

First of all, we both know there's no such thing as total safety. In contrast to other ticketholders, you made a qualified decision to venture forth.

As partial payment for indiscretions past, the skygods decided I needed to pilot flying boats for a while. Round engine & turbine converted, manufactured early in the post war period. At some point, everything on earth wears out. Guys had to perform repair/inspection work Grumman never imagined during design and construction. The accident aircraft was 80. Let's face it, MX protocols to service routine operations on antique fleets are experimental, at least to some degree. Not that it matters to victims, I also hope the reason lies elsewhere.

Yeah, I guess after enough years, aviation experience, and expended nine lives I'm with you on this. Glad I flew in a vintage warbird once but probably won't again. Maybe a DC-3.

What happened?

Looked at a few of the Sunday edition Zurich papers this morning. Seems like one of the early theories advanced by a Swiss aviation journalist has water collecting in the tanks as result of atypical atmospheric conditions (vapor/heat) exacerbated by a black metal finish, while parked. Consequently, engine power was later interrupted in flight. The startled crew sharply turned back, presumably causing an unrecoverable loss of lift. Meanwhile, investigators are going through passengers cameras trying to recover anything useful. Barring an airworthiness discovery or action by authorities, the company may begin to resume operations by month's end.

I would guess flying old cranky airplanes in mountains is not for the timid.

I'm guessing the reporter was following speculation someone put him onto. Second hand accounts of engine anomalies? Past hot performance conflicts and/or mountain rotor upsets, undisclosed if so. Tragic mystery.

This attached item appeared today. In German obviously but if you care to scroll through the pictures, it's pretty clear the aircraft was in impeccable condition. Ju-Air's chief pilot claims 100% confidence in the transport's safety and owes it to the company's 160 employees to continue. He goes on to mention families of victims who are urging him to restart as soon as possible. No date for which has been set.

https://www.20min.ch/schweiz/news/st...trieb-17134978

Approved to start flying again tomorrow. Will be limited to specific GPS routings. GPS airspeed and altitude required. Pax must remain seated with belts secured in flight. Seems like they've also agreed to observe some better than required terrain clearance altitude minimum. Investigation ongoing.

Can't help but wonder if that would happen so quickly on this side?