Sign in to follow this  
dfish

Cessna In Trouble

Recommended Posts

Apparently there are serious problems with Cessna's 208B Grand Caravan. It seems that the aircraft is very suseptable to icing at low altitudes. This is the suspected cause of two accidents. One on a flight from Pelee Island in Lake Erie to Windsor Ontario crashed into the frozen lake last week; another crashed in Alaska in 2001 after ice forming on the wing after takeoff. There is a pending lawsuit on this issue. Rumor has it that Cessna know of that the Caravan was very suseptable to icing.The 208B Grand Caravan is the same that appears in FS2002 and FS2004.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Most in the aviation industry have known this since shortly after the plane was originally introduced. C'mon....any plane that needs deice boots installed on the wing struts obviously was not designed with flight into known icing in mind.On the other hand, if the FAA decides to ground them in order to subject them to icing tests, it would make a much better airplane once the inherant problems are rectified. This is what happened to the ATR years ago, and it is now one of the safest airplanes in known icing IMO due to the great measures that were taken to prevent more accidents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you take an aircraft into conditions it was never designed for and it gets into trouble, it's pilot error and not the aircraft at fault.The Caravan wasn't designed with deicing equipment as standard (though it is I believe an option), therefore people taking them into icing conditions have no reason to blame anyone but themselves.The whole idea to blame someone else is just a way to try and make a quick big buck from liability lawsuits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>If you take an aircraft into conditions it was never designed>for and it gets into trouble, it's pilot error and not the>aircraft at fault.>>The Caravan wasn't designed with deicing equipment as standard>(though it is I believe an option), therefore people taking>them into icing conditions have no reason to blame anyone but>themselves.>>The whole idea to blame someone else is just a way to try and>make a quick big buck from liability lawsuits.Transport Canada agrees with you. They suspended the flying licence for the small airline involved in last week's crash. TC might also attack the ice problem as a possible cause so the two might end up getting the short end of the stick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got to agree. Why would you take a little plane like that into known icing conditions? Fly around it.JimCYWG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That plane crashed right after takeoff 2km away from the island. Assuming there was no ice on the wings at the time it took off, that's got to be one hell of an ice accretion rate to bring it down that quickly, 208 or not. Have they recovered the plane yet? Have they ruled out some form of power loss? Did the pilot state the nature of the problem in his mayday call? Did he somehow lose control after entering IMC? We have apparently solved the accident here already, so we have all those answers, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Official suggested cause as put forward by the operator is severe icing.That's an easy reason to blame an aircraft loss in winter on when you're operating up there as it's out of your control and the average potential customer or investor won't blame you for it.If the crew is dead they are usually blamed for not avoiding the cause of the accident, again placing blame on someone or something that cannot defend itself.Aviation authorities are investigating and I think will turn up that the pilot and/or airline are to blame for flying an aircraft without proper equipment in known icing conditions (possibly taking off with icing that impaired airworthiness).But the airline can't suggest that initially can they? It would lead to immediate lawsuits against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>That plane crashed right after takeoff 2km away from the>island. Assuming there was no ice on the wings at the time it>took off, that's got to be one hell of an ice accretion rate>to bring it down that quickly, 208 or not. Have they>recovered the plane yet? Have they ruled out some form of>power loss? Did the pilot state the nature of the problem in>his mayday call? Did he somehow lose control after entering>IMC? We have apparently solved the accident here already, so>we have all those answers, right?The plane probably will not be recovered by spring. Lake Erie is very shallow so it almost freezes solid in the winter. It's particularly bad this winter because of the snow and cold.TC says it will be almost a year until the come to a theory on the cause. This is pretty normal because they have to assemble the plane like a jigsaw puzzle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The whole idea to blame someone else is just a way to try and make a quick big buck from liability lawsuits.Except the innocent passengers, most of whom depend on the experience of the ones they're paying to fly them. The pilots, Air Service, and manufacturer, owe a duty of competence and care. If the latter don't measure up to that standard then their liability is deserved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this