-
There is no better time to show your support for SuperCub.Org than during our annual calendar campaign! All the details are HERE
Oops, darn it...
- Thread starter Anne
- Start date
mvivion
SPONSOR
Bozeman,MT
You may have answered your own question. Even a Beaver has limits in the wave action it can handle.
MTV
Troy Hamon
Registered User
King Salmon, AK
Have not heard any details but I had the impression it was a smaller un-named lake near Becharof where the accident occurred.
Farmer Hank
SPONSOR
Kalispell, Montana
Heard today that the Carbon Cub raffled off in Alaska recently was damaged at Hot Springs, Montana. Prop strike and wing damage. My info is third hand, so someone else may know a lot more about this incident.
BC12D-4-85
SPONSOR
Fairbanks, AK.
A local Fairbanks C-185 fatality was reported today: 05-OCT-22 23:53:00Z N217C FAIRBANKS ALASKA CESSNA/185 ACCIDENT DESTROYED 1 AIRCRAFT CRASHED UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES, FAIRBANKS, ALASKA. If the owner of record was aboard I knew him well since the 1960's.
Gary
Edit: This from another pilot:
Yes, jerry stansel, he drowned in the airplane. He had aborted a take off
and was taxing in and one float dug in and he went over. Someone at chena
marina has video of it. Bummer, guess the load pinned him in.
Gary
Edit: This from another pilot:
Yes, jerry stansel, he drowned in the airplane. He had aborted a take off
and was taxing in and one float dug in and he went over. Someone at chena
marina has video of it. Bummer, guess the load pinned him in.
Last edited:
h2oavi8r
SPONSOR
Silverdale, WA
Emergency AD DHC-3
FAA Issues Emergency AD for DHC-3 Otter elevator auxiliary spar. Interesting to note that the FAA already published a notice of proposed rule making of a similar nature on February 8th and that’s based on a Transport Canada AD dated 1/19/2018. They’re still reviewing public comments.
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...-directive?utm_source=epilot&utm_medium=email
https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExt...002535.0001?modalOpened=true?modalOpened=true
FAA Issues Emergency AD for DHC-3 Otter elevator auxiliary spar. Interesting to note that the FAA already published a notice of proposed rule making of a similar nature on February 8th and that’s based on a Transport Canada AD dated 1/19/2018. They’re still reviewing public comments.
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...-directive?utm_source=epilot&utm_medium=email
https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExt...002535.0001?modalOpened=true?modalOpened=true
BC12D-4-85
SPONSOR
Fairbanks, AK.
I'd take lots of date/time stamped pics of those affected parts during the E-AD inspection. Might be valuable later.
Gary
Gary
h2oavi8r
SPONSOR
Silverdale, WA
The AOPA article quotes the NTSB - “witness accounts are consistent with a flight control malfunction”. More NTSB quotes in the article.
The Emergency AD has a 3 day or 10 hour completion requirement.
aktango58
FRIEND
18AA
I believe the otter that crashed right after take off in Dry Bay early this summer was an elevator issue.
Not sure if it was the same failure, but hey- if a spar is failing it seems prudent to have it fixed. If it is a common issue, and some mechanics just blow it off 'until we have time' to fix it, :evil::evil::evil:as a pilot I would prefer an emergency AD.
Had enough of 'leave it for now' attitudes.
Not sure if it was the same failure, but hey- if a spar is failing it seems prudent to have it fixed. If it is a common issue, and some mechanics just blow it off 'until we have time' to fix it, :evil::evil::evil:as a pilot I would prefer an emergency AD.
Had enough of 'leave it for now' attitudes.
Looks true, and caused by a ground loop according to the FAA. Too bad, it was a beautiful airplane. I sure do enjoy flying my FX3, and it's awfully easy to land on 31's. I don't understand why this keeps happening. With that said, there but for the grace of god go I....
https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=...RY_DATE,P96_FATAL_FLG,P96_MAKE_NAME:06-OCT-22
Attachments
Agree completely. I hate that the otter as a type is getting a bad rap from this; it’s an amazing airplane and I hope they keep flying for a long time. I do think, however that all personnel involve in the operation need to acknowledge the fact that these are 60+ year old airframes with 150+% hp that they were designed with, and treat them accordingly. This means actual inspections instead of pencil whipped 100hrs, and actual preflights and attention to details by pilots. Also actually spending money on maintenance. I’m not in any way condoning sloppy maintenance, but if that’s your approach, I’d suggest something a lot newer without 30k+ hrs of fatigue. Your sloppy maintenance may very well still kill you, but you might up the odds a little...
I thought the Yakutat one was on approach to landing? I’ll have to look it up...
Edit: http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2022/05/de-havilland-canada-dhc-3t-turbine.html?m=1
Heard from another source it was severely aft loaded, but sounds like it could’ve been an elevator issue...?
Edit: http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2022/05/de-havilland-canada-dhc-3t-turbine.html?m=1
Heard from another source it was severely aft loaded, but sounds like it could’ve been an elevator issue...?
Last edited:
BC12D-4-85
SPONSOR
Fairbanks, AK.
From the NPRM from 2/08/22: Edit> For the DHC-3 discussed
"Costs of Compliance
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 38 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA also estimates that it would take about 145 work-hours per airplane to establish a corrosion prevention and control program and comply with the initial tasks of the program.
Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $468,350 or $12,325 per airplane.
The FAA estimates it would take about 1work-hour to report any corrosion found during the proposed initial inspections, for an estimated cost of $85 per airplane.
The extent of damage found during the proposed initial inspections may vary significantly from airplane to airplane. The FAA has no way to determine the estimated cost of repair or replacement of damaged parts for each airplane or how many airplanes may need these repairs."
Gary
"Costs of Compliance
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 38 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA also estimates that it would take about 145 work-hours per airplane to establish a corrosion prevention and control program and comply with the initial tasks of the program.
Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $468,350 or $12,325 per airplane.
The FAA estimates it would take about 1work-hour to report any corrosion found during the proposed initial inspections, for an estimated cost of $85 per airplane.
The extent of damage found during the proposed initial inspections may vary significantly from airplane to airplane. The FAA has no way to determine the estimated cost of repair or replacement of damaged parts for each airplane or how many airplanes may need these repairs."
Gary
Last edited:
skywagon8a
MEMBER
SE Mass MA6
Not only the increase in horsepower but also the change from a slow turning radial engine to a high rpm turbine. The vibrations generated by the two engines are vastly different which creates a totally different fatigue pattern with different types of failures. Over long periods of time new stuff happens which would not have happened had the engine not been changed.
wireweinie
FOUNDER
Palmer, AK
skywagon8a
MEMBER
SE Mass MA6
Did you get your PM?
aktango58
FRIEND
18AA
Defiantly an increase in fatigue with a turbine, they might actually stay in the air instead of landing somewhere remote due to the 1340 failing again and again
BUT, to be clear, my comment about poor inspections by some mechanics is not specific to an Otter, but an attitude.
And just to add to the mix, the garret’s turn the opposite way; always wondered if/how that affected things on an airframe that was used to something else for the first 20k hrs. Have seen some crazy cracking on the stabilizer skins- had one with 3-4 cracks that showed up in 200-300 hours. Scab patched in the middle of the season, then the patches cracked almost right away. Reskinning with thicker material and fixing some cracked ribs put a stop to it. Also have seen some serious wing strut cracks, one had a strut that would vibrate so bad on takeoff, you couldn’t see the middle of it...
skywagon8a
MEMBER
SE Mass MA6
You should witness a flutter analysis test when it is done in the hangar. The plane is placed on jacks and a vibration making device is attached. When different frequencies are introduced the airframe bends and twist like a bowl of jelly. I guarantee that if any of us ever saw the airplane wiggle like that in flight you would need more than a clean pair of shorts. These test are a safe way to determine what the safe dive speed may be without an inflight flutter test program. The test of a popular light twin I watched was done because they were getting different flutter speeds between different versions of the same airplane in flight. It was discovered that the presence of a large oxygen bottle fixed behind the baggage compartment was the culprit. Now who would have guessed that?
I'm not surprised the Otters are having issues after installing turbines.
Some SC.orgers here have this airplane, a PA-30.
frequent_flyer
Registered User
Arizona, USA
Probably not the standard aicraft lifting jacks though as these would change the resonant frequencies seen in at least the wing structure. I saw the DC-9 Super 80 (later named the MD-80 series) in ground vibration test in the Douglas flight test hangar. That was many years ago but I think it was supported by a special bungee system attached to the landing gear.
This paper confirms my recollection - https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.469.9806&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Last edited:
skywagon8a
MEMBER
SE Mass MA6
I don't recall what the support looked like, only that it was supported. It likely would have jumped off a standard lifting jack. My observation took place in 1966.
Wingwrench
Registered User
Lakeland, Fl
We buzzed the Gee Bee Z many years ago, here is part 1 of the youtube vid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtiN48ePYwA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtiN48ePYwA
skywagon8a
MEMBER
SE Mass MA6
Notice how the stabilizer of the PA-30 is flexing at 20:. That was the issue which was being tested when I witnessed the analysis. Those stabilizers had a tendency to bend up or down at the mid span. This is what determined the Vd speed. Vne = 90% of Vd.
I had 2 PA30s and the last one scared me with tail flutters. I use to descend from higher altitudes to approach altitude by putting descent rate at 300fpm until it reached the yellow arc and then it would start to flutter. Did it twice and nothing nothing seemed to fix it. It is now living in Australia.
Jim
Jim
skywagon8a
MEMBER
SE Mass MA6
That speed was too low for flutter. Perhaps the elevator cables were too loose or something else needed attention? Each version had different flutter speeds. The B model with the back window was different than it's predecessor. Tip tanks, Oxygen systems, deicer boots any combination, all had different speeds where flutter was noticed. In the end Piper reduced the Vne on all of them to the same speed rather than to have a variety of Vnes. The one I was involved in had all the extras. Turbo, deicer boots, prop anti-ice, oxygen tank behind the baggage, Tip tanks, B model windows, in other words it was loaded. Great airplane!
frequent_flyer
Registered User
Arizona, USA
I had exactly the same though. I checked the TCDS and didn't find any reduction in limit speeds for altitude (or any TAS correction). I'm used to seeing that in glider limits and I have also found that reduction in some airplane TCDS. What determines if TAS compensation is specified for any given aircraft?
skywagon8a
MEMBER
SE Mass MA6
What do you consider high altitudes for a PA-30? Also the airplane limits are based upon IAS in this airplane. It does not fly in the altitudes where this would mater to any extent..
