Aircraft Safety

[ltdiver 3]

To not muddle up the Incidents Forum with this observation, I'll pose it here.

In the code of aircraft safety there are a few observations that can be made in regards to skydiving aircraft. (Please nobody take offense. Let's keep this to a learning experience and not a flame-war).

As observed by itllclear in the recent, horrible, Quantum Leap tragedy. The subject of seats and seat belt arrangements:

Quote

1) "troop seats" like Perris, Elsinore, Eloy, and others have?

2) Sit backwards on the floor with a belt across your lap? or

3) Straddle Benches in which the restraint is hooked on the harness?

#3 would keep the pax in the plane, although allowing them to be flung around the cabin. #2 would allow pax to slide out of the belts in the event of a sudden forward decleration,. #1 does the best job of keeping pax in their seats no matter what happens.

If the Otter -does- have #2 wouldn't it be prudent to require that all loop their seatbelt through their harness and -not- just around their lap. I've been to a certain very high profile and busy DZ where they have several Otters (if not all of them) with skydivers sitting on the floor with this kind of arrangement. Does everyone take the time to make sure they are secure in the event of a crash? That they won't just slide backwards out of the lap belt? (Quantum Leap has the #3 scenario, it was told)

On the issue of keeping the door open on take-off. flyhi mentions this:

Quote

Understand this can be magnified if the lost engine is the starboard (#2) engine and the door is open. Air flow will tend to go into the aircraft through the out of trim condition and the open door and cause excessive drag.

I know where I jump they -require- that the door be closed for take-off and until 2,000' AGL. No matter if it's sweltering heat outside or not. I didn't know the stats that flyhi brought to light (which are very good, thank you). I always knew that if the door was open that the scenario of a pc coming loose and going out the door would be fatal at least for the person attached...if not the whole aircraft when it snagged the plane.

These are just two pet peeves that have plagued my mind for a long time and just came back to light with the current incident. Let's keep in mind that we can't change what has happened and can't re-write history. However, we can all learn and prevent an exact repeat. We can save lives by acting smarter.

Anything else to add, please feel free.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[itllclear 1]

To quote the St. Louis Today article:

Quote

Larry James, 73, said the passengers inside formed "a mass of people tangled in every imaginable way."

That's when he called 911.

"All the people were strapped in there," Larry James said. "You could access the people easily, but to untangle them, that was a job for the medical professionals."

Something to think about.

BSBD

Harry

"Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there."

"Your statement answered your question."

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

If the Otter -does- have #2 wouldn't it be prudent to require that all loop their seatbelt through their harness and -not- just around their lap. I've been to a certain very high profile and busy DZ where they have several Otters (if not all of them) with skydivers sitting on the floor with this kind of arrangement. Does everyone take the time to make sure they are secure in the event of a crash? That they won't just slide backwards out of the lap belt? (Quantum Leap has the #3 scenario, it was told)

I've not seen scenario 2. Every floor-seated Otter I've been in (and that's quite a few) has had belts fixed at the side, to pass through the harness.

Regardless, I don't think any belt will save you in a true crash, (as opposed to a semi-controlled off airport landing).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Zing 2]

Too little is yet known about the crash of Quantam Leap's twin otter to speculate about the cause. That's best left to the investigators from the NTSB. I'm heartily sad this has occurred.
That said, it is VERY disturbing to me that a lightly loaded twin otter, even one with Dash-20 engines, was unable to maintain controlled flight to a survivable landing. I wonder what went wrong in the chain of events.
I've been a jump pilot (10,000-plus hours) for a few years and have had engine failures in most phases of flight, including take off. So far, I've been lucky, I guess, but aircraft safety has been one of my pet peeves ever since I started jumping in 1971.
From past experience, I can tell you that when the shit hits the fan and the wheels aren't on the ground, it's assholes and armpits in the back where the skydivers are sitting. Panic and terror tend to have rather unsettling effects on folks. Panic results from not knowing what to do and how to react, when the danger level goes deep in the red.
Until the pilot in command says otherwise, the best thing you can do during an engine failure is nothing. Don't move, and keep your ears open and your mouth shut.
Despite drop zone rules and regulations, I've seen countless examples of stupidity that could have had dire consequences.
The open door on take off could spell the difference between a safe landing or a mulitiple fatality crash when an engine fails during rotation and lift off. I do not mean to imply 203E's door was open. I don't know if it was or not. It's irrelavent to this post. But, I can't even tell you how many times I've stopped at the end of the runway and held take off until the door was closed, only to feel and hear it re-open as the aircraft rolled down the runway. Twice, I've aborted take offs and informed the jumpers that if it happened again, they would no longer be welcome in any airplane I was flying. Needless to say, that action wasn't popular with dropzone management at more than one DZ.
Those who know me understand that I've never considered my personal survival a lower priority than management's opinion of me. I was the pilot in command. I made the decision ... and stand by it, damn the popularity contests.
You can demand that the door remain closed for take off. Even if someone with a dozen gold metals says, "it's too hot."
Seatbelts, a relatively new requirement for skydivers since the twin otter crash in California in 1992, are frequently ignored by too many skydivers. Not all plane crashes are survivable, but a PROPERLY installed and utilized seatbelt could make the difference between death, injury, or walking away unscathed.
If I recall correctly, the seatbelt and mount is expected to withstand an impact load of 15 g. Beyond that, the wearer can expect to become a projectile along with everything else not secured. A loose or improperly worn seatbelt is capable of inflicting severe injuries.
Of the various configurations of seats, benches, floors and belts, consider this. If the belt won't hold you in place, you're not as safe as you could be, and are a potential hazard to the others.
On a squat/straddle bench, merely looping a belt through your harness may not be enough. A belt through both leg straps that is snugged down and not flapping loosely at your side might be something to consider. Without a backrest supporting you, a body will slide right out from under a belt over your lap.
On the floor, you can indeed slide right out from under a seatbelt during sudden deceleration. Again, putting it through both legstraps and pulling it snug will keep a passenger more securely in place.
On a bench seat, the belt needs to be around your body AND snugged down tight to properly secure you.
Common sense should tell you that in a bad one, it's better to be held in place than to become the weight at the end of a pendulum that can swing smashingly into things that are harder than the human body.
Yeah ... yeah ... I've heard the snivels too ... it's too hot to close the door ... some asshole farted and it smells ... it's too much hassle to get that seatbelt done up right ... etc., etc. ad nauseum. What's your life worth to you? And by the way, I'd just as soon not be squashed by someone who became a meat missile.
Center-of-Gravity, also known as CG, is critical to safe flight, yet skydivers are incredibly ignorant about this stuff. Go to the NTSB accident reports on the web and you'll find numerous examples of crashes and incidents directly attributable to out of range CGs. CG is affected by where the weight is relative to a theoretical balance point. As weight moves forward or aft, the CG changes.
A CG too far aft can result in the pilot being unable to hold the nose down and has stalled more than one jump plane. I've been there and it isn't fun ... it's terrifying. For the Lockheed Lodestar in Washington, it was fatal ... for something like 16 people.
With the CG too far forward, the pilot may not be able to hold the nose up ... as is needed to maintain level flight. This situation can be more than a little bit worrisome during take off and landing.
The bottom line on CG is that you can't safely fly airplanes if the CG is too far aft or too far far forward.
This post lacks the room for a precise description of CG limits for all the planes used for jumping, but I will offer this opinion ... if the pilot is telling you to move forward or move back, there's likely a good reason for the demand, whether you understand it or not.
The FAA's Federal Aviation Regulations clearly state that the pilot-in-command has the authority to demand compliance with requests to passengers in regard to the safety of a flight.
You may not like the pilot's request, hell, you may not like the pilot personally, but in the airplane is not the place for an argument. Better to hash it out later on the ground when a load's safety is not an issue.
For pilots, I'm not the greatest avaition expert around, but I'll offer a few suggestions that have helped me survive ... so far.
Much has been written about VMc, response times, identifying which engine failed (for multi-engine), and the proper airspeed for glide.
In the real world, when (AND NOT IF) an engine fails it takes time to react and you WILL lose airspeed ... as much as 10 knots in my experience.
Close to the ground, airspeed is your friend. It can be traded for altitude if needed. After lift off (and gear retraction if applicable) grab a few extra knots for the initial climb. If one quits and you're only at blue-line, airspeed could well degrade below blue-line before a pilot can get everything cleaned up and secured. I like at least an extra 10 knots until I've got enough altitude to trade it for airspeed if needed.
Fly the airplane as far into the crash as possible ... I think Bob Hoover offerred that gem of advice to Chuck Yeager once. My version of that on is ... Don't hesitate to wrap the airplane up in a ball if that will keep you alive. Survive to fly again, there's more airplanes out there.
I've likely said enough ... for now, but if you ride airplanes, you need to understand that the laws of physics governing flight are not appealable for your convenience.
Zing lurks

Zing Lurks

[itllclear 1]

For those of you who don't know Zing ... he's real!

I think he's said just about everything that needs to be said.

If you don't agree with him, I don't want to be in a plane with you at the controls.

There's another thread discussing the same issues. Maybe the moderators want to merge them.

On my way back from ORD to LAX on a 757 yesterday, someone at the boarding gate asked why I chose the next to last row. "So I'll have your and 150 other bodies to cushion the impact before I get there."

BSBD

Harry

"Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there."

"Your statement answered your question."

[mjosparky 3]

Hey Robert,

Very good post. Thanks for trying to educate.
And yes, as Harry said, Zing is for real. Holder of the worlds fasted turn-a-round. 2 minutes 5 seconds.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Zing 2]

Damn Michael, there goes my reputation. Me? Record holder? Say it ain't so.

Zing Lurks

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Damn Michael, there goes my reputation. Me? Record holder? Say it ain't so.

Hell you were there, don't you remember?

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

Hey Robert,

Very good post. Thanks for trying to educate.
And yes, as Harry said, Zing is for real. Holder of the worlds fasted turn-a-round. 2 minutes 5 seconds.

Yeah, yeah I know Zing too. And what he says is to be taken seriously.
Zing flew at Ghoulidge, I mean Coolidge.
But I wonder why Mike has not gotten on your case for not filling out your profile???

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

But I wonder why Mike has not gotten on your case for not filling out your profile???

The same reason I don't get on your case.

I know who Zing is and I could fill out his profile myself right down to his MEL cert. number.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Zing 2]

There ya go ... I be officially profiled.

Zing Lurks

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

There ya go ... I be officially profiled.

Well lets just say you would be somethinged. (is that a word?) I don't know about "officially". If I get out your way I will take you up on those beers.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[riggerrob 558]

Yah!
Whatever Zing said.

[Scrumpot 1]

Quote

But I wonder why Mike has not gotten on your case for not filling out your profile???

Ha! I was thinking the exact same thing Jan. I guess in Sparky-(profile Nazi)-world, there are, apparently, a few exceptions.

I do think that you and Zing BTW, just for the record, probably do QUALIFY for those though.

I'd have listened to 'im anyway though, even if Michael did "profile nazi" 'im.
Eh?

Blues,
-Grant

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[Scrumpot 1]

Maybe we should create a new rating/certification # here as a result of this? I can actually see this of some value! Something for the newbs to be able to quickly be able to cut the (posting) "wheat from the chaff" so to speak. So long as signed-off by a poster with a "SPNE #" *, no profile information is necessary. It is certified and sanctioned. The character of the poster him/herself anyway that is. By THE "profile nazi" himself, our very own MJOSparky!

*(SPNE = Sparky Profile Nazi Exception number)

Blues,
-Grant

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[tombuch 0]

(Replying to thread topic in general, not a specific post)

Airplanes break. That’s a sad fact of life. Sometimes an aircraft failure is really no big deal, but sometimes even a simple failure can generate a fatal accident. One of the big differences between a ho-hum event and a fatal accident is the training and currency of the pilot.

Commercial airlines have great programs for crew training that require pilots to attend regular classroom refreshers and take written exams, face frequent check rides, and spend lots of time in simulators, usually every six months. These requirements help give pilots the skills they need to deal with unexpected problems so that ho-hum events remain of little concern.

It may come as a surprise to learn that the FAA prescribes almost no actual requirements for the training of jump pilots. FAA mandated recurrency checks are limited to one every two years, but there is no requirement for a pilot to demonstrate proficiency in any specific aircraft. So, a pilot who regularly flies jumpers in a Twin Otter can pass a check ride in a Cessna 172 every two years, and be fine to fly full loads of jumpers in Twin Otters. Fortunately, most insurance companies have higher standards, so I’d guess the bulk of our jump pilots have at least some recent training in the airplanes they are flying.

Unfortunately, some of the turbine airplanes flying jumpers carry no insurance, and thus there are no insurance requirements imposed on the pilots. In fact, at least some regular jump pilots flying high performance turbines may have never had time in a simulator, and may not have even practiced emergency procedures in a real turbine airplane in many years. Simulators are expensive, and just taking a turbine jump plane up for some one-on-one instructor/pilot training costs big bucks.

As most of us know, there was a fatal accident last weekend involving a Twin Otter. I don’t know what the training or experience level of that pilot was, although I’ve heard good reports about his level of professionalism. Still, that accident highlights the potential for catastrophic accidents, and makes it abundantly clear that our pilots must be well training and current in their emergency procedures.

Now would be a great time to ask your DZO or pilot staff what kind of training they have had in aircraft operations, when they were last in an aircraft type-specific simulator, and when they last practiced their response to an engine out at rotation. I’ll bet we will all be surprised to learn how little formal recurrent training actually takes place. We might also be surprised to learn that some DZ’s have outstanding programs to keep their pilots sharp. It would be great to know which DZ’s really shine in this area.

Here’s a challenge to everybody reading this…call your DZO and ask questions about the training of your pilots. Seek specific answers about what training is provided, where, when, by whom, and if full motion simulators are used. Then post a summary of local requirements here so we all have a chance to learn just how much training actually takes place for the pilots of our turbine airplanes. It would be great to know which DZ’s place the highest value on pilot training.
.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

Quote

Zing Said:
That said, it is VERY disturbing to me that a lightly loaded twin otter, even one with Dash-20 engines, was unable to maintain controlled flight to a survivable landing. I wonder what went wrong in the chain of events.

Thanks Zing for saying that... I wondered / thought the same thing too, but didn't think I had the credibility to say it... and for the rest of your post too. We've never meet, but your rep as an excellent pilot preceeds you.

[bob.dino 0]

Quote

...when they were last in an aircraft type-specific simulator...

Do type-specific simulators exist for most of the aircraft types used in jump operations? I've been able to find sims for the Caravan and Twin Otter, but that's about it. What about the Skyvan, 750XL, Porter, etc?

[Scrumpot 1]

Excellent post, and "challenge" Tom. For those non-pilots out there (including myself), how about a list of good, solid, and APPROPRIATE questions being provided that we can ask?

Also, care to provide any insight as to reasonable expectations as to how they should be answered? And/or even "handled" maybe over-all for that matter? For instance, how much "alarm" should be raised if your given DZO/pilot(s) get DEFENSIVE with the jumpers (for even) asking the questions too, or try to be "uppitty"/intimidating in their responses? Having some insight as to reasonable expectations (and foreknowlege) on the responses I think, can probably be of some value too. I know I've already got mine set, and in my situation, I've got a pretty good relationship with my DZ's pilots; but maybe you'd like to further help out a few others too, who may be interested in following up on your "challenge", but might not have that "open" of a relationship, and be as confortable with the approach & "handling"?

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[tombuch 0]

Quote

Also, care to provide any insight as to reasonable expectations as to how they should be answered? And/or even "handled" maybe over-all for that matter? For instance, how much "alarm" should be raised if your given DZO/pilot(s) get DEFENSIVE with the jumpers (for even) asking the questions too, or try to be "uppitty"/intimidating in their responses?

OK, some quick ones:

How many pilots operate the airplanes?

How many of those pilots hold commercial or ATP certificates? (All should be commercial in the type of airplane they are flying (ie: single or multi-engine), ATP is better, none should be private pilots.)

How many total hours does each pilot have, and how many hours in the type of aircraft they are flying with jumpers. (Answer will vary. My suggested answer is 1,000 hours total time for any jump pilot including a Cessna operation, and 250 hours minimum in-type for a turbine operation. Some pilots have fewer hours, and that might be OK if their training and ongoing supervision are more extensive.)

When was the last time EACH pilot participated in actual flight training and emergency procedure training conducted by an instructor/check pilot, or under the guidance of another pilot, in each of the aircraft type he/she flies? (The answer should be within the last six months for each pilot in each airplane.)

When was the last time EACH pilot participated in full motion simulator training to cover loss of an engine at rotation with a full load of jumpers? (The answer should be every year for multiengine turbine aircraft such as the Twin Otter. Cessna pilots may not have any full motion time, but they should have at least some basic desktop simulator time to train loss of power at rotation under worst-case scenario, and they should have extensive training in the actual airplane at minimum controllable airspeed in take off configuration with a full load. Your pilots should be able to discuss what kind of training is actually available for the airplanes they fly, and why they have/have not participated in that training.

Does this drop zone have a formal training plan with documentation? (The answer should be yes, we’ll be happy to show it to you.)

You should be able to ask each pilot what the maximum gross passenger weight is for each airplane he flies, and how many jumpers that is with gear. Each pilot should be able to show that the airplanes he is flying are always loaded within weight and balance parameters established by the manufacturer. Each pilot should be able to calculate the weight and balance for any load you describe. This is especially important for pilots of Cessna 182’s---you should be able to give him/her the weights of four jumpers WITH GEAR, and receive a weight and balance calculation for each specific airplane that shows the airplane is loaded within the manufacturer defined envelope. This is a standard calculation that every pilot should be able to compute in a few minutes. In some cases, a drop zone will already have weight and balance calculated for the most extreme load they will carry, and this should be available to you. Do not tolerate evasive answers to this question.

You should be able to ask each pilot what the required takeoff distance is under “standard” conditions for your runway, and how heat, wind, and load affect that distance. Your pilots should be able to tell you what limitations heat places on the aircraft operating limits at your airport. Your pilot should be able to show you that the airplane can take off under the hottest conditions, with maximum gross weight, or he should have preset parameters that reduce the number of jumpers under those conditions.

You should be able to ask each pilot what they would do in the event of loss of power from one or both engines, what the anticipated single-engine climb rate will be with a full load, and what specific alternate landing places they intend to use for each part of the first 1,000 feet of climb. As jumpers we know that when flying back to the airport we should always have an alternate landing field within reach, and pilots should be able to describe the same approach to maintaining a specific alternate for every takeoff. (A good answer will be something specific like: “If I loose power before this point on the runway, or this specific airspeed, I’ll shut down. If I’ve passed that point on the runway or that airspeed I’ll land straight ahead. If I have reached xxx feet I’ll land in this specific field. The next alternate landing area will be this field. At an altitude of xxx I’ll make a 180 degree turn and land back at the DZ.” These alternates should be pre-established before takeoff for every flight. This is basic stuff and should not be a problem for any pilot.)

Answers to all the questions will vary, but you should expect a well reasoned discussion from your pilots. Please, however, do not try to hold this conversation at 2:00 on a busy Saturday afternoon! It’s actually a great topic to cover on Safety Day, but that doesn’t mean you should wait for another nine months to ask the questions.
.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[riggerrob 558]

Returning to the original question ...
None of those methods work very well, at restraining parachutists during crashes.
Not even the United States Air Force - with its gajillion dollar budget - has invented the perfect method for restraining parachutists.
The best system was developed by a "good old boy" who then convinced the FAA to grant him a Supplementary Type Certificate.
That "good old boy" is Jack Hooker - from Illinois - a retired skydiver and rigger who makes his living sewing specialty seatbelts for aerobatic, warbird, etc. pilots.

Hooker's skydiver belts are sewn from regular seatbelt webbing and standard seatbelt buckles, but they don't wrap around your waist, instead they loop through one leg strap or one hip junction, then fasten onto themselves. Their main function is to prevent skydivers from bouncing around the cabin during impact.
A decade ago I assisted with a PIA/FAA test program involving Hooker's belts and the FAA's crash test sled in Oklahoma City. We concluded that Hooker's belts held crash test dummies in their places, but did not prevent neck injuries.

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

Here's the PRELIM NTSB report from the Sullivan, MO crash:

---------------------

NTSB Identification: CHI06FA210
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, July 29, 2006 in Sullivan, MO
Aircraft: de Havilland DHC-6-100, registration: N203E
Injuries: 6 Fatal, 2 Serious.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On July 29, 2006, about 1345 central day light time, a de Havilland DHC-6-100, N203E, piloted by an airline transport pilot, sustained substantial damage on impact with trees and terrain during takeoff from runway 24 (4,500 feet by 75 feet, dry concrete) at the Sullivan Regional Airport (KUUV), near Sullivan, Missouri. Witnesses observed flame emitting from the right engine during the takeoff. The skydiving flight was operating under 14 CFR Part 91. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. No flight plan was on file. The pilot and five passengers sustained fatal injuries. Two passengers sustained serious injuries. The local flight was originating from KUUV at the time of the accident.

A witness on the road at the end of the takeoff runway, in part, stated:

I was riding my bike on AF Highway approximately 1:30 or 1:45
pm on the afternoon of July 29, 2006. I was at the end of the runway
and heard the sky diver plane, and as I always do, I stopped and
watched it take off. It was about 150 feet in the air and just about at
the end of the runway when all of a sudden, there was (Poof) sound
and the right engine was engulfed in fire. The plane kept going and
was turning to the right. It was not gaining any altitude but staying
about the same height, the right engine was just barely turning at that
time and then the trees blocked my vision. ... I listened for about
fifteen seconds and heard a crunching sound and I looked for smoke
but there was none.

Another witness, who was in her backyard pool area adjacent to the accident site, stated that the airplane was low and flying straight and level towards her. She said that the plane nosed over. She and her father were the first on-scene and placed the 911 call. She reported that local emergency medical service arrived within minutes.

The airplane impacted trees and terrain behind a residence and came to rest vertically nose down against a tree about a half mile north west of the end of runway 24. The empennage separated from the fuselage and remained connected to the fuselage through the control cables. The right wing was separated from the fuselage at the wing root. The right flap was extended. The left wing was separated from the fuselage at its rear spar. The left wing's forward spar remained attached. The left wing's flap was retracted. The outboard section of both wings exhibited rearward crushing. A wooden pole that supported the electrical service to the residence was found on the ground. The electrical wires from the pole were found resting on the left wing. The airplane's nose and cabin were crushed rearward. The left engine and propeller separated from its wing and were found resting on the ground under the left wing engine nacelle. The right engine separated from its wing. The right engine's exhaust section separated. The forward exhaust section, propeller gear box, and propeller were found about three feet west of the right engine nacelle. The remainder of the right engine was found about ten feet west of the right engine nacelle. The smell of fuel was present at the site.

An on-scene investigation was conducted. Flight control cables were traced from the flight controls in the cockpit to each flight control surface. All breaks in cables were in overload. Flight control continuity was established. Engine control cables were traced from the cockpit engine controls to each engine. All breaks were in overload. Engine control continuity was established. The forward fuel cell was torn. Fuel was found in forward and aft fuel cells. The engine and propellers are being retained for further examination.

At 1253, the recorded weather at the Rolla National Airport, near Rolla, Missouri, was: Wind 290 degrees at 9 knots; visibility 10 statute miles; sky condition few clouds 5,000 feet; temperature 35 degrees C; dew point 20 degrees C; altimeter 30.04 inches of mercury.

[riggerrob 558]

Quote

Quote

...when they were last in an aircraft type-specific simulator...

Do type-specific simulators exist for most of the aircraft types used in jump operations? I've been able to find sims for the Caravan and Twin Otter, but that's about it. What about the Skyvan, 750XL, Porter, etc?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Simulators are developed for IFR airplanes that are built in large numbers.
For example, simulators are available for Cessna Caravans because Caravans are frequently flown by junior pilots, at night, on tight schedules, launching into know icing, etc. Many of those scenarios are just too dangerous or expensive to practice in real airplanes.

We will probably never see Skyvan simulators because less than a thousand Skyvans were built, and production ended several years ago. Since the number of Skyvans dwindles every year (through crashes and metal fatigue), the number of airworthy Skyvans declines every year. To a simulator manufacturer, that equals a tiny market, with little chance of recooping their investment.

Similarly, we will probably never see simulators built for Pilatus Porters since Porters are rarely flown IFR. I don't even know if Porters are certified for flight in instrument conditions.

PAC 750 is simply too new an airplane to have dedicated simulators ... yet! They probably won't build PAC 750 simulators until the airplane is certified for IFR and plenty of them are routinely flying parcels at night, etc.

[JohanW 0]

Quote

I don't even know if Porters are certified for flight in instrument conditions.

At least here in the Netherlands, they are. Skydive Rotterdam has one, and has done night jumps with it. 'Round here, that's IFR - no such thing as Night VFR.

Johan.
I am. I think.

[brianfry713 0]

I think that some PAC 750 XL's are certified for IFR, as of last month.