I didn't think that these or the DC-3 ever crashed...
-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates
-Dik
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Dehavilland Otter 3
- Thread starter dik
- Start date
Alistair_Heaton
Mechanical
loads of both have crashed over the years.
Mostly due to pilot error but some human factors issues like this one I suspect will turn out to be.
Mostly due to pilot error but some human factors issues like this one I suspect will turn out to be.
- Thread starter
- #3
...was just joking, a couple of decades back there was a DC-3 crash in Oshawa, and the reason was overloading. I didn't think it was possible to overload a DC-3 (humourous myth). The reason was the load shifted, which reaffirmed the legend.
-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates
-Dik
-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates
-Dik
Alistair_Heaton
Mechanical
They use twin otters in Scotland to fly to Barra they land on the beach. Full commercial airport.
- Thread starter
- #5
JohnRBaker
Mechanical
The story is that no DC-3/C-47 has ever crashed due to a failure of the air-frame.
Note that my wife's father was a C-47 pilot in WWII, dropping supplies to the French partisans prior to D-Day and then hauling ammo and fuel to Patton's army later on. And he told how if you could get it inside the plane, you could take-off. I forget how many 55-gal drums of gasoline he told me that they used to load when they were trying to keep Patton supplied and on the move.
John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:
The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without
Note that my wife's father was a C-47 pilot in WWII, dropping supplies to the French partisans prior to D-Day and then hauling ammo and fuel to Patton's army later on. And he told how if you could get it inside the plane, you could take-off. I forget how many 55-gal drums of gasoline he told me that they used to load when they were trying to keep Patton supplied and on the move.
John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:
The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without
Coupla stories about the DC-3:
There was a DC 2 1/2, where a damaged wing on a DC-3 was replaced by one off of a DC-2. The latter is about 10' shorter. I've seen the photo.
During the Berlin Airlift, a C-47 was loaded (and flew) with pierced steel planking instead of the specified pierced aluminum--13,500 pounds instead of rated 5-7000 pounds.
spsalso
There was a DC 2 1/2, where a damaged wing on a DC-3 was replaced by one off of a DC-2. The latter is about 10' shorter. I've seen the photo.
During the Berlin Airlift, a C-47 was loaded (and flew) with pierced steel planking instead of the specified pierced aluminum--13,500 pounds instead of rated 5-7000 pounds.
spsalso
I am think I came across a DE Havilland "Twin Otter" (I am sure if I am wrong that some one will correct me ;-) ) when trying to figure out the SE-MES accident, it crashed outside the Norwegian coast.
The Norwegian accident recovery commission stated that it was a pilot error, but the Norwegian pilot association wouldn't accept it so finely they sent of the wreckage to this place outside London, I am sure Alistair knows the name of it.
And they came to the conclusion that it was a badly welded pipe that had been filled up with water and when it froze due to flying up and down the Norwegian cost in the winter it burst and the plane could not use it's elevators any more.
The Norwegian accident recovery commission thought it brock of at the impact.
I can probably find the report, I might have it saved somewhere, if anyone is interested.
The plane crash in Örebro was a De Havilland Canada DHC-2 Mk. III
“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein
The Norwegian accident recovery commission stated that it was a pilot error, but the Norwegian pilot association wouldn't accept it so finely they sent of the wreckage to this place outside London, I am sure Alistair knows the name of it.
And they came to the conclusion that it was a badly welded pipe that had been filled up with water and when it froze due to flying up and down the Norwegian cost in the winter it burst and the plane could not use it's elevators any more.
The Norwegian accident recovery commission thought it brock of at the impact.
I can probably find the report, I might have it saved somewhere, if anyone is interested.
The plane crash in Örebro was a De Havilland Canada DHC-2 Mk. III
“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein
enginesrus
Mechanical
A good example of an engineering failure. There sure seems to be a problem when it comes to designing "jack" screws for aircraft control surfaces. That is and has been an accident waiting to happen.
Why is it so many parts on aircraft are redundant, yet the most important system there is on a plane is totally neglected as far as redundancy goes. In any aircraft that has a control cable system, (I suppose even the fancy flyby wire may even use some in some area? )redundancy is ignored at least in the ones I am familiar with. If a cable snaps, or a pulley pops, there goes that function, if its for the elevator maybe you will be lucky and can use trim to maintain some control. In the case of this plane and that Alaska plane years ago it is an out of control horizontal stabilizer that should have stops, and not be allowed to go so far that elevator can not still maintain flight. What were they thinking? Maybe all aircraft should be like the cirrus and have a parachute.
Why is it so many parts on aircraft are redundant, yet the most important system there is on a plane is totally neglected as far as redundancy goes. In any aircraft that has a control cable system, (I suppose even the fancy flyby wire may even use some in some area? )redundancy is ignored at least in the ones I am familiar with. If a cable snaps, or a pulley pops, there goes that function, if its for the elevator maybe you will be lucky and can use trim to maintain some control. In the case of this plane and that Alaska plane years ago it is an out of control horizontal stabilizer that should have stops, and not be allowed to go so far that elevator can not still maintain flight. What were they thinking? Maybe all aircraft should be like the cirrus and have a parachute.
Alistair_Heaton
Mechanical
control cables on the FAR25 commercial stuff have been dual since the 70's possibly before that.
Most of the single item stuff is due to weight.
FBW does have at least three recovery paths for any single failure. Most have way more than that. We don't have jack screws on modern FBW. And I don't count A320 as modern.
Parachutes are often touted as the solution. But the weight involved, and energy makes it uneconomic for how often they would save the day.
And the UK AIBB place is in Farnborough.
Twotter and dc3 are not far25.
Human factors though throughout the whole supply chain has got much much better over the years, It should be an integral part of all aviation sphere manufacturing and operations.
Most of the single item stuff is due to weight.
FBW does have at least three recovery paths for any single failure. Most have way more than that. We don't have jack screws on modern FBW. And I don't count A320 as modern.
Parachutes are often touted as the solution. But the weight involved, and energy makes it uneconomic for how often they would save the day.
And the UK AIBB place is in Farnborough.
Twotter and dc3 are not far25.
Human factors though throughout the whole supply chain has got much much better over the years, It should be an integral part of all aviation sphere manufacturing and operations.
-
3
- #11
The crash in question was a failure of maintenance IIRC, not design.
The resolution of the Airworthiness Directive is to inspect the fastener and replace it, if necessary.
As AD's go, that's pretty ho-hum. As accidents go, at first glance looks like good ol' human error.
The resolution of the Airworthiness Directive is to inspect the fastener and replace it, if necessary.
As AD's go, that's pretty ho-hum. As accidents go, at first glance looks like good ol' human error.
Alistair_Heaton
Mechanical
I get a gut feel sometimes that some AD's are just evidence gathering with these inspection ones.
Human error or procedural none compliance which didn't catch the error?
I would have thought as it was a primary control surface it should have come under a dupe signature work.
I know from my one and only time swapping an engine out and rerigging a Jetstream I had to stop and go and get Tam and Ian to check multiple linkages and locking wire which they then sign was inspected.
Human error or procedural none compliance which didn't catch the error?
I would have thought as it was a primary control surface it should have come under a dupe signature work.
I know from my one and only time swapping an engine out and rerigging a Jetstream I had to stop and go and get Tam and Ian to check multiple linkages and locking wire which they then sign was inspected.
Double signatures are the norm - or they should be - for some such tasks. Especially for commercial operations carrying passengers. As you pointed out earlier AH, since the plane in question isn't a "part 25" design (more appropriately "CAM 4b" since the design is 70 years old) you can see slack in some maintenance practices on it. That's a pretty tough thing to explain to the public - it's their risk whether the plane has 5 or 50 passengers.
This opinion of mine is based on observations of other outfits that operate & maintain planes of similar varieties, and not the operator that suffered the accident that triggered this AD. So don't take my comment as directed at them specifically. I really don't know what happened that triggered that accident.
This opinion of mine is based on observations of other outfits that operate & maintain planes of similar varieties, and not the operator that suffered the accident that triggered this AD. So don't take my comment as directed at them specifically. I really don't know what happened that triggered that accident.
Alistair_Heaton
Mechanical
I really didn't take it like that. As we both know the QA system may be perverted on the shop floor. Adn big names have been found to have an issue with that symptom. British Airways is a prime example.
With the part M stuff in Europe there isn't really that much difference between aircraft type or size on Pub cat CoA's aircraft. They all have to have a Maintenace manual and CAMO looking after them. Be it C150 or A380.
With the part M stuff in Europe there isn't really that much difference between aircraft type or size on Pub cat CoA's aircraft. They all have to have a Maintenace manual and CAMO looking after them. Be it C150 or A380.
- Status