Hi there Moggy,
No I´ve not been to Bernay yet. But that might change this summer as I´m in the early stages of planning a CAP 10 trip down to the continent. The most likely time is late july or early august. Bernay is on the list of must visit places.

Regarding side by side seating for aerobatics, I don´t even notice it any more. I also fly aeros in a YAK 55 and a little in a Zlin 326, and when switching from them to the CAP the seating gives me no problem at all.

And this is mine 😀 😀 😀

Hello eu copilot,

I´m a former ATR driver, so maybe I can give you some insight. There can be no doubt about it, in the early days of the ATR, they had some icing problems. Some of it can surely be blamed on the profile of the wing, I´m not going to pretend otherwise. But there is another aspect rarely discussed, namely the human factor in these accidents/incidents. It is not all the aircrafts fault, the biggest part of the blame must fall on the operation of the aircraft in these situations.

Before I go into specific accidents, I would like to explain what is happening to the wing of the ATR in Severe Icing Conditions. All of the ATR accidents/incidents related to Icing have happened in Freezing rain. What happens, supercooled waterdropplets strike the front of the wing and flow backwards over the de-icing boots before they freeze. Some of them make it to the area beyond the boots before they freeze. For the droplets to make it this far back they have to be of a certain size, IIRC they have to be bigger than 150 microns. In the certification criteria for Air Transport Aeroplanes dealing with flight into known Icing Conditions, states that the De-icing equipment of such an airplane must be able to deal with supercooled droplets of 40 microns. So it is evident that the aircraft getting into difficaulties because of Severe Icing are being operated outside their certification envelope. But we as pilots don´t have any equipment to measure the dropplet size, I get to that problem a little later.

When an ATR is flying in Severe Icing Conditions (freezing rain) with a dropplet size of at least 150 microns (flight tested at Edwards AFB) a ridge of Ice froms aft of the de-icing boots when they are operated. This ridge of ice starts to behave like a vortex generator, creating a very strong vortex behind it. Unfortunately the lowest pressure in this vortex is above the ailerons. Now, if the ice accumulation is completely equal on both wings AND the ailerons are both dead center, nothing happens as long as those conditions are met. Both ailerons have equal low pressure above them trying to suck them up. But this is not the perfect world. Ice accumulation is seldom absolutly equal and the autopilot is constantly making small roll corrections. As soon as the autopilot starts to make one aileron move up, the vortex grabs it and wants to slamm it to the stop. Initially the autopilot can handle the force, but a point is reached when it is overpowered by the vortex. The first indication the crew of the aircraft would have of that problem is a messeage on the ADU (Advisory Display Unit, the autopilot status sceen) saying…….AILERON MISTRIM. Moments later the autopilot disconnects and the bewildered crew is treated to a very fast aileron roll. From which they try to recover by pulling back on the yoke as the aircraft goes past inverted. Game over.

Now lets have a look at some accidents. The first accident caused by icing on the ATR was when an Alitalia (if I remember correctly) ATR crashed near Milan. The cause? The crew was climbing the aircraft in V/S mode on the autopilot through icing. The speed fell off, the aircraft stalled, autopilot disengaged and a quick aileron roll followed. They never pulled out of the resaulting dive.

The most famous ATR accident is the one near Roselawn Il. in the US where an ATR 72 crashed due to icing. They were trying to get into Chicago but the airport was closed due to weather. They were stacked in the holding over Roselawn at 5000 feet, on autopilot in freezing rain. They were holding in freezing rain for approx. 35 min. before it happened. Autopilot disconnected and a sharp aileron roll followed with a dive to the ground.

After this accident, ATR came under a lot of pressure from all and sundry. Boeing wanted to get a commercial exposure from the accident by trying to get the idea into peoples head that everything European was inherently dangerous. It was part of their early battle with Airbus. Various commercial pilot associations in the US jumped on the Boeing wagon and an intense lobbism was started to get the NTSB to be EXTRA careful in this case. As a resault the NTSB grounded all ATR’s flying in the US while the investigation was under way. The fact that the ATR that crashed had been flying in holding for over 30 min. In severe icing was completely lost on them. The ensuing investigation resaulted in the ATR becoming THE most studied aircraft in the world at the time with regards to icing. Nothing definate was found which indicated the ATR as a particulary dangerous in icing conditions. I´ve seen the uncut version of the tape shot on these experiments, and it is hard to understand how the aircraft could fly with all this ice on it. In the end the NTSB was forced to lift the grounding of ATR’s in the US.

Even though the test were inconclusive, ATR tried to fix the problem by extending the de-icing boots further aft with mixed resaults. Further more they issued a very compehencsive guidelines in the FCOM and the AFM on how to recognize and deal with severe icing. To recognize severe icing, it is recommanded that the pilots pay particular attention to water splashing or flowing on the front window when OAT is at or below 0° also pilots are advised to pay attention to unheated portions of the side windows for any sign of ice buildup. If one or both of these symptoms are present pilots are advised disconnect the autopilot asap and fly the aircraft manually. This is to prevent the autopilot from masking the effects the icing is having on the aircraft. Next step, according to the FCOM and the AFM is to leave and avoid conditions of severe icing, declaring an emergency if neccesary. Another point is never to let the speed go below 160kts.

Even after these guidelines were issued by ATR, we continued to receive one or two reports a year where ATR’s had departed controlled flight after flight into severe icing conditions on autopilot. Fortunately none of them resaulted in an accident. But it says a lot about the training and/or the attitude the people flying the aircraft. To have all these tips and recommidations and not following them is pure folly. I´ve flown the ATR in severe icing and by stricktly following the ATR procedures we didn´t have any difficaulties at all.

Now, back to you original question about this ATR that crashed late last year. It is very unlikely that this aircraft crashed because of icing IF the crew followed the correct proceedure.

Hope this answears some of your questions

Regards,
Galdri

Moggy C,
You say parachutes are optional in aerobatic aircraft. I´m not sure that is the case, at least not here in Iceland. Parachutes are mandatory in aerobatics. The Icelandic CAA is always priding it in being a copy of your CAA, so I guess it must be mandatory in the UK as well??

Maybe I´m wrong 😉

Hello mongu,
All military aircraft are what is called a “state aircraft” according to the ICAO classification. The reason they are not registered like normal aircraft is the fact that they are exemt from all airworthiness requirements and do not have to conform to International Air Law in their operation. This means they can do what ever they like and are not bound by normal air law. However there is a clause in the Chicago Convention stating “military aircraft shall however show due consideration to civil airtransport”

NO military has an AOC. AOC stands for Air Operators Certificate. Only companies engaged in Civil Air Transport Operations have an AOC. To get an AOC you have to meet stringent rules and are monitored by the local CAA. Stringent rules and monitoring are the last thing any military wants.

Hope this answears your question.

Lancman,
In your shoes I would not be calling the DC3/C47 Dakota “that damn thing”!!! After all it is this very machine that keeps you beloved Lancaster in the sky at all!!

All the pilots in the BBMF are drawn from current RAF personel, and the only thing they have known from the begining of their flying carrier is some really HOT jet with a NOSEWHEEL. Before they are even allowed anywhere near anything historic they have to carry out a tailwheel conversion on the Chippies, of which the BBMF has two. Surely you would not want some NOSEWHEEL driver doing his own tailwheel checkout some historic piece of machinery like a Spitfire or an Hurricane. Flying nosewheel is completely different from flying tailwheel. I know it….I´ve been there!! And Spits and Hurries are not the best mannered of the spieces! The risks of something going wrong on landing/take off are just SO great, if the man at the helm is not up to standard on a taildragger. The sight of an Hurricane laying severely mauled by the side of the runway, because some NOSEGEAR driver thought he could handle her, is not my idea of flying historic aircraft. And I will not listen to the crap about the JET JOCKEYS being the greatest pilots on earth. They are just human, and if they don´t reveive the training they are going to screw up. Like it or not. That´s why the Chippies are there in the first place, to teach nosegear drivers the fine art of taildragger handling. All the guys that are to be checked out on the Lancaster then transition to the C47 for additional training. Why? That is because a HEAVY taildragger has a few more tricks up it´s sleave than it´s lighter siblings. And these tricks have to be mastered as well to fly a heavy taildragger safely. How about it Lancman…..would you like to see your beloved Lancaster laying ruined beside the runway after a groundloop caused by the pilot/crew not knowing what he/they had on their hands?

The C47 is a very cost effective way of heavy taildragger training. It is REALATIVELY cheap to operate, spares are no problem and you can always get another one if this one is wrecked during training. Not so the Lancaster…..It is very expensive to operate, spares are very difficault to come by and if you happen to wreck it…..sorry that´s it. Nothing like it is flying and can be bought. At any PRICE. Even wreck are not growing on every tree…..you know. Getting a wreck flying FORGET it.

Another very important task for the Chippies and the C47 are pilot recurrent training. If you have not performed a certain task for some time, you get rusty. You surely wouldn´t want a rusty pilot to be flying you Lancaster……would you??

This has all become rather longer than first intended, but I hope it will stop another “DAMN DAKOTA” post, or for that matter another “DAMN CHIPPIE” post on the forum regarding the BBFM.

Regards

Interesting questions….Unforturnatly I don´t have the answears to all you questions, but here are the ones I know.

2. The lifeboat was not a standard thing. It was spcifically designed to the airdrop role with a very strong hull.

3. Yes there were some speed and hight limits. I can´t remember them. All the lifeboats drifted down in parachutes.

6. Others I know about are Hudsons and B 17’s

Hope someone else can fill into the gaps