135 Cargo Opp accepting resumes

[FlySooner9]

This group is somewhat local to me, their called Martinaire. They fly C208's
http://www.martinaire.com/employment.html
http://www.martinaire.com/
Pilot Hiring Minimum Flight Times:

1200 Hours Total Time

500 Hours Cross Country

100 Hours Night

75 Hours Instrument

BASES
DRT (Del Rio, TX)

EWN (New Bern, NC)

ABI (Abilene, TX)

MHR (Mather, CA) - Stand-by Position

[meritflyer]

208s huh? Nice airplanes. I heard they are going to lose their ice cert.

[EatSleepFly]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

208s huh? Nice airplanes. I heard they are going to lose their ice cert.

Not likely. If companies would just stop hiring stupid pilots to fly them, the accident rate wouldn't be so high and they wouldn't be getting so much flak from people who have no icing experience in them. Besides, do you really think the FAA would do anything even if it was a real safety concern? It's all about money. If the Caravan loses it's icing certification, a lot of operators might very well go out of business.

The whole situation is over-hyped, in my opinion. Caravans safely fly in ice for who knows how many tens of thousands of hours a year. A few pilots get themselves killed, and now the airplane has a bad rep.

[mtsu_av8er]

Originally Posted by EatSleepFly

A few pilots get themselves killed, and now the airplane has a bad rep.

You know, I hear that the C172 is going to lose it's single pilot certification - do you know how many pilots get killed in those things while flying single pilot?

[aloft]

Originally Posted by EatSleepFly

Besides, do you really think the FAA would do anything even if it was a real safety concern? It's all about money.

Indeed. The insurance industry will clamp down on it well before the FAA does.

[flightopsab]

Originally Posted by EatSleepFly

If the Caravan loses it's icing certification, a lot of operators might very well go out of business.

Agreed!! Too many operators rely on Caravans for the any weather/any mission type of flying. If anything, the feds will make Cessna rewrite the training manuals to include additonal training for flight into K-ICE and other procedures, like disconnecting the AP when in icing (re the Russian Caravan accident)

[wheelsup]

Originally Posted by EatSleepFly

If companies would just stop hiring stupid pilots to fly them...people who have no icing experience in them.

What did you do before flying the Caravan? Had you ever flown into known ice prior to taking the on-demand job?

I'd make a pretty good guess that, because of the type of people hired into the van, they lack experience with ice. It has nothing to do with intelligence. I'd bet Airnet (and other Caravan operators) hire some CFI's who haven't even SEEN ice let alone flown in it, especially if they flew in the southern most states.

[EatSleepFly]

Originally Posted by wheelsup

Had you ever flown into known ice prior to taking the on-demand job?

As a matter of fact, yes. I'm not quite sure how that's relevant though.

Originally Posted by me

If companies would just stop hiring stupid pilots to fly them

OK, I definitely worded that wrong. Companies are not necessarily hiring stupid pilots, but many pilots are doing stupid things in this airplane.

Originally Posted by wheelsup

It has nothing to do with intelligence.

It has everything to do with intelligence, and a lot to do with complacency. Are you familiar with many of the Caravan's icing incidents/accidents? Most of them were not newbies to the Caravan. Somebody fresh from the CFI world is very likely to be much more cautious than someone with a lot of hours in the airplane. I know I was. Also, my company was hardcore into icing training/recognition/avoidance, having lost a pilot and Caravan before I got there. Who knows, maybe that was my saving grace.

So, if it has nothing to do with intelligence, let's take a look at some, shall we? Perhaps you will change your mind.

1.) Nearly 10,000 hrs, 202 in type. Probable cause: The pilot's failure to maintain aircraft control while on approach for landing in icing conditions. Inadequate airspeed was a factor. [2 Dead]

2.) 4,800 hrs, 2,800 in type. Probable cause: The pilot's inability to see through the windshield, which was obscured due to icing conditions. This resulted in the pilot's inadequate flare, and a subsequent hard landing. A factor contributing to the accident was the wing icing. [1 Uninjured]

3.) 11,094 hrs, 4,640 in type. Probable cause: The pilot's failure to maintain aircraft control. Contributing factors include the pilot's failure to divert to an alternate airport, an inadvertent stall, and the snow and icing conditions. [1 Fatal]

4.) 3,100 hrs, but only 74 in type. Probable cause: An in-flight loss of control resulting from upper surface ice contamination that the pilot-in-command failed to detect during his preflight inspection of the airplane. Contributing to the accident was the lack of a preflight inspection requirement for CE-208 pilots to examine at close range the upper surface of the wing for ice contamination when ground icing conditions exist. [1 Fatal]

And my personal favorite (and the one I am very much familiar with)- this moron took off into severe known icing WITH ICE ALREADY ON THE AIRPLANE.

5.) 3,800 hrs, 2300 in type. Probable cause: The pilot not removing the ice contamination from the airplane prior to departure and the pilot intentionally flying into known severe icing conditions, resulting in the aircraft not being able to maintain altitude/clearance from the terrain. Factors to the accident included the icing conditions and the trees encountered during the forced landing. [1 Fatal]

These are some of the icing accidents that people are using to wage war on the Caravan's icing certification. Of course there are other incidents too, but with happier endings. Still, a lot of them fit the description of "stupid."

The intelligent Caravan pilots, are the ones out there flying in it, night after night that we never hear anything whatsoever about. They know that the airplane is limited in icing conditions, and they fly smart.

How can you say it has nothing to do with intelligence? I honestly don't understand. Do you have any idea how many hours this airplane flies in icing conditions, incident free? A lot. Buuuut, leave it to a few idiots to kill themselves and draw attention to the fact that, OK, it's not great in ice. And then a whole other throng of idiots who've never even sat in a Caravan jump on the bandwagon saying what a deathtrap it is in ice. (Sound familiar...Mu2?)
All that being said, the Caravan does kinda suck in ice.

BUT, no more than a whole lot of other airplanes. It's just that they probably don't spend as much time in icing conditions. There are a lot of 'Van operators out there flying around in icing regions.

How can the problem be fixed?

More power would be nice. Perhaps a different wing design. Requiring ice protection on nearly everything (already done). Studying the use of TKS as an alternative to boots a little closer (one of ours had it, I think it sucks, but some folks love it).

The best solution to the problem? FLY SMARTER! Leave an out. Don't get complacent. Tell dispatch to shove it where the sun don't shine if you're not comfy with the conditions. Attend factory training. The factory icing seminars are pretty good- perhaps improve them some more and make it a requirement that Part 135 Caravan pilots attend them.

Pulling it's icing certification is overkill- maybe somewhat akin to outlawing motorcycles on public roads because they are "unsafe."

Just my $.02.

[MFT1Air]

Originally Posted by wheelsup

What did you do before flying the Caravan? Had you ever flown into known ice prior to taking the on-demand job?

I'd make a pretty good guess that, because of the type of people hired into the van, they lack experience with ice. It has nothing to do with intelligence. I'd bet Airnet (and other Caravan operators) hire some CFI's who haven't even SEEN ice let alone flown in it, especially if they flew in the southern most states.

So true. I'm in the Gulf. It's only snowed here twice in the eight years I've been here, so icing conditions being an issue? Not even close. I've watched the NASA videos, Collins videos relating to icing, but I wouldn't know it from first had experience. Heck, I'm still stressing when I see rain clouds in the far distance much less the possibility for icing.

. . .but to the posting above mine? Yes, perhaps idiots they were all. . .perhaps not. Believe me when I say great innovations come as a result of those trying to achieve the Darwin award.

[Adam2006]

We probably all agree that pilots make errors(as we are all humans), but we should learn from others mistakes. They deserve respect, they already paid the ultimate price..... their life.

[EatSleepFly]

It's one thing to screw up (everyone does), but it's quite another to climb in your already iced-up airplane, and blast off into known severe icing conditions. Sorrrry, not gonna get much respect from me.

[mtsu_av8er]

Originally Posted by Adam2006

They deserve respect, they already paid the ultimate price..... their life.

Ummm . . . no?

If I jump off of a bridge and die, do I deserve respect simply because I gave my life?

[jonnyb]

Originally Posted by MFT1Air

So true. I'm in the Gulf. It's only snowed here twice in the eight years I've been here, so icing conditions being an issue? Not even close. I've watched the NASA videos, Collins videos relating to icing, but I wouldn't know it from first had experience. Heck, I'm still stressing when I see rain clouds in the far distance much less the possibility for icing.

. . .but to the posting above mine? Yes, perhaps idiots they were all. . .perhaps not. Believe me when I say great innovations come as a result of those trying to achieve the Darwin award.

Actually it doesn't really matter where you are. Icing conditions aloft are common everywhere. Wheelsup, you should know that.

[wheelsup]

Originally Posted by EatSleepFly

The intelligent Caravan pilots, are the ones out there flying in it, night after night that we never hear anything whatsoever about. They know that the airplane is limited in icing conditions, and they fly smart.

I'm glad you have such a high regard for yourself. Perhaps your life (and many others) might have been cut short one day because of incorrect lost comm procedures? Remember that discussion?

You admit that its not great in ice, list a long list of things to make it better, make fun of people who kill themselves in it, and then say "just fly smarter" and they won't kill themselves? Thanks, Captain Obvious...

[wheelsup]

Originally Posted by jonnyb

Actually it doesn't really matter where you are. Icing conditions aloft are common everywhere. Wheelsup, you should know that.

True, but have you been to florida in the wintertime? Not a cloud in the sky. When I was down there a total of 4 years I never once had to pay attention to icing. Maybe a little frost in the morning, but certainly not ice aloft in the 2,000 - 5,000 foot levels. If pilot did all their training and instructing there, it wouldn't be unheard of for them to never see ice. And whenever there WAS ice, I certainly didn't even attempt to fly that day...

[EatSleepFly]

Originally Posted by wheelsup

I'm glad you have such a high regard for yourself.

Thank you.

Perhaps your life (and many others) might have been cut short one day because of incorrect lost comm procedures? Remember that discussion?

Oh please. Give me a break. The FAA speaks out of both sides of it's mouth, and I'm the retard for going by the FAR's (regulatory) over the AIM (not regulatory).

You admit that its not great in ice, list a long list of things to make it better, make fun of people who kill themselves in it, and then say "just fly smarter" and they won't kill themselves? Thanks, Captain Obvious...

Well you didn't seem to get it, but if I'm so obvious, WTF is this discussion about, exactly?

I never made fun of people who killed themselves in it, and I'm a little put off that you think I'd stoop to that level. I called a spade a spade, that's all.

[Stone Cold]

FWIW, ESF, as a current Van driver, I agree wholeheatedly with everything you said. What did you say to me before in a thread...it just wasn't worth the argument, or something to that effect.

Wheelsup,

I'm glad to hear you spent 4 years in FL and never saw a cloud in the sky during winter months. However, I was on a flight this past Nov between ATL and JAX and had moderate Icing. And guess what, I also had some icing on the flight down to ORL from JAX at 6K in a Baron during that same trip.

I took many x-countries out of DAB with us well over 6K feet during training years ago, never saw icing, but I think it was blind luck/Riddle's way of keeping the man down . I instructed in St Mary's, GA and had trace icing while shooting approaches during the winter, so yes it is possible.

Looking at those reports, as I think all Van drivers do, they were Darwin Award winners. Period. No disrespect to them...they did not fly to the best of their abilities and judgement. Now, all van drivers are looked at with skepticism about their abilities and judgement.

Have you read the AD for the Van? It's like reading a dummies guide to the Van. If you were to get yourself into any of those situations, you should've aborted the flight already, since it's more than you want to be in in any airplane.

Just my opinion about an airplane I fly regularly.

[wheelsup]

Originally Posted by EatSleepFly

I never made fun of people who killed themselves in it, and I'm a little put off that you think I'd stoop to that level.

If companies would just stop hiring stupid pilots to fly them

Calling someone "stupid" is making fun of them in my book. I guess it's not in yours. Although, judging by the accident reports, one has to wonder. Maybe it was more complacency (like you said) than inteligence being a factor? Maybe they had pushed the envelope many times prior and were simplying doing it again?

You're right, the Caravan flies in all types of weather, in all seasons, in all parts of the country and a few people end up dead. It's certainly not unexpected. As an outsider (non Caravan guy) looking in, I see no reason to yank the icing certification, especially when you have accidents like you quoted above.

[wheelsup]

Originally Posted by txpilot

I took many x-countries out of DAB with us well over 6K feet during training years ago, never saw icing, but I think it was blind luck/Riddle's way of keeping the man down . I instructed in St Mary's, GA and had trace icing while shooting approaches during the winter, so yes it is possible.

Yeah, riddle had a way of keeping people way too sheltered. Hell, even in the barons that MAPD had I refused to go into icing conditions. I had a really bad experience my first time with ice, at night, in a single. I can't imagine what goes through ya'lls heads all alone up there on a daily basis, in an aircraft that at best is marginal in ice.

My orginal hypothesis, that people are killing themselves in carvans because of a lack of experience with ice was busted by ESF's list of accidents. He even made a good point, that newbie 208 pilots are probably going to avoid ice like the plague.

A true story - one of my students had an instrument checkride. During the oral the question "would you go or not?" came up. My student sad no - clouds and temps in the icing range (slightly below freezing) at cruise. The examiner actually chewed him out and said why not? If you encounter icing you can just turn around...WTF? Why intentionally put yourself in that situation... (in an aircraft with no icing protection except defrost and pitot heat? This was from an experienced DE who flew corporate.

[Stone Cold]

Originally Posted by wheelsup

Yeah, riddle had a way of keeping people way too sheltered. Hell, even in the barons that MAPD had I refused to go into icing conditions. I had a really bad experience my first time with ice, at night, in a single. I can't imagine what goes through ya'lls heads all alone up there on a daily basis, in an aircraft that at best is marginal in ice.

I take it you didn't leave yourself an out in the single? Yes, that would make your viewpoint skewed towards staying out of ice at all costs. However, in real life, when you get paid to fly from point A to point B in an airplane, you may have to go via point C to get there to avoid the worst of the stuff, or climb above it, or get below it, or whatever your experience tells you to do, but you can almost always get it done.

As far as the Van being marginal at best, from what I've experienced over this past winter flying the Van mostly, I never even came close to what the FAA defines as "moderate" icing. According to them, if you lose more than 20 kts during cruise, have to add more than 400 ft/lbs of torque (we're always at max torque anyways, or one of our other red lines) to maintain, have more than 1/4 inch of ice on the strut, or get below 120 kts (which is impossible if you are cruising at 150 normally, since you can't drop more than 20 kts), then you are in Moderate icing. The most I've lost during cruise is 10 kts and I was pretty iced up, for my comfort level. That's when you ask for block altitudes, etc. and keep on going, or go to option 2 or 3 or whatever you have to do, but always keep flying the plane. If it really came down to it, I'd put it down on a road or field if push comes to shove when it comes to icing, rather than auger it in.

As far as what goes through my head, always stay ahead of the conditions, and always have at least 3 options just in case the first 2 don't work out. Most of the time, I have several options, and most icing, from my experience, lets you have a way out as long as you know what you're doing.

I'd definitely be interested to hear how you scared yourself so badly in the icing...

Originally Posted by wheelsup

A true story - one of my students had an instrument checkride. During the oral the question "would you go or not?" came up. My student sad no - clouds and temps in the icing range (slightly below freezing) at cruise. The examiner actually chewed him out and said why not? If you encounter icing you can just turn around...WTF? Why intentionally put yourself in that situation... (in an aircraft with no icing protection except defrost and pitot heat? This was from an experienced DE who flew corporate.

I'm not sure I'd argue with that decision by your instrument stud, but once it comes to COMM, or higher, I'd tend to side with the examiner. The only way your going to learn is to get out there and do it. Actually experience it to see what it's all about. Now, if they're calling for Moderate or greater, and PIREPS show Moderate or greater, then you don't go getting into trouble. You stay on the ground, but if you just see there might be an overcast and it might be around freezing, but you stay on the ground, you may never fly in some locations during the winter. If you're working on your COMM, he, as examiner, is making sure you can get paid to fly and won't kill yourself doing so.

At Airnet, while in training, the exact quote from the training dept, since most of us had little icing experience and some of us, myself included, were apprehensive about it, was while the icing levels are still high, go up and experience it, before you really have to go through it, so you know what it's all about.

They have never questioned me on any decision I've made, and I've been late before due to t-storms (going around the worst stuff, etc) and icing (block altitudes, etc., climbing into worse winds to sat out of the bad stuff), and all they said was ok, thanks for the info...they needed it to justify being late. I have never cancelled a flight, have yet to delay a flight, and haven't experienced half of what's out there. I've had the pucker factor go up, but never, in a year of flying night 135 SP ops, scared myself. I know it might come, but I definitely have an appreciation for the weather and for what I can and can't do.

[wheelsup]

Originally Posted by txpilot

I take it you didn't leave yourself an out in the single?

It wasn't a big deal in the scheme of things. By a bad experience, ice starting sticking to the airplane and we turned back toward the airport. Disaster averted.

However, in real life, when you get paid to fly from point A to point B in an airplane, you may have to go via point C to get there to avoid the worst of the stuff, or climb above it, or get below it, or whatever your experience tells you to do, but you can almost always get it done.

You're flying a aircraft WITH a turboprop engine, WITH icing protection, WITH icing certfication. I'd have no problem going through ice with that. My viewpoint changes when you are now flying a piston single or multi with none of those things. Now combine that while flying in an area of the country where if you "go below it" you hit a mountain, the only option would be to climb (and utilize the 30 minute rule about O2 about 12,500). Apparently you'd go up and 'try' it in a piston single. I personally wouldn't. I'd bet this "pushing the envelope" is what got some of these caravan guys killed.

Getting paid to do it, IMO has nothing to do with it. The equipment used to do it, does.

once it comes to COMM, or higher, I'd tend to side with the examiner.

While icing conditions don't always = ice, intentionally putting yourself in that situation in a piston single (or multi) with nothing to knock the ice off doesn't make much sense (to me anyway). That's why I stayed out of it. Call me a wuss if you want, I don't care.

If it really came down to it, I'd put it down on a road or field if push comes to shove when it comes to icing, rather than auger it in.

I guess thats the difference between a 'err on the side of caution' and a freight pilot, isn't it?

[jonnyb]

Getting paid to do it, IMO has nothing to do with it.

Of course it does. We get paid to get people or boxes where they need to be, as opposed to training someone to fly or flying around for pleasure. Big difference. We have an obligation within the rhelms of safety whereas in the other two situations, one does not.

It's funny how far OFF topic this thread has become.

[averyrm]

I guess thats the difference between a 'err on the side of caution' and a freight pilot, isn't it?

Actually, that is erring on the side of caution. He said if every other option failed and he was in the air in a plane you said you'd take up in icing, then he'd do a precautionary landing in a field or highway rather then try to keep it flying at all costs.

[mtsu_av8er]

Getting paid to do it, IMO has nothing to do with it.

It is the essence of the discussion!

I get paid to move the boxes where they have to go. If I can't get said boxes where they need to be, I'm being paid for nothing!!

We want to be considered "professional", and we complain that "we're not paid what we're worth". However, when the weather turns crappy, we can't find a way to go!!! Hmmm . . . .

[EatSleepFly]

Originally Posted by wheelsup

I guess thats the difference between a 'err on the side of caution' and a freight pilot, isn't it?

Oh, so now we're a bunch of yahoos. Nice.