Caravan Pilots

More Caravan Icing News
Page 1 of 1

Author:  MACWHO [ Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:14 am ]
Post subject:  More Caravan Icing News

2006 Randolph vs. Cessna
This successful settlement arose from the crash of a Cessna Caravan single engine turbine aircraft. The Wolk Law Firm hired the University of Texas to perform wind tunnel studies of the Cessna Caravan to determine why so many were crashing in only light to moderate icing conditions. The results were astounding. The research proved, the wing design, the deicing system design, the tail configuration and the flight manual were all defective. The Wolk Law Firm established that Cessna had deliberately misled the FAA and the NTSB about the flaws in the Cessna Caravan icing certification. The research has been made available publicly to fulfill another of the Wolk Law Firm’s goals, improvement in aviation safety.

Author:  MACWHO [ Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: More Caravan Icing News

The safety mantra: anti-icing ON, autopilot OFF, speed UP, get OUT of icing

The basic procedures necessary to cope with in-flight icing continue to be re-learned the hard way - with dead aircrews and wrecked airplanes.

The basic aircraft certification standards do not protect against freezing precipitation. Procedures required by airworthiness directive also may be inadequate, as evidenced by the toll of dead pilots and shattered airplanes

Author:  MACWHO [ Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: More Caravan Icing News

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued a new rule that prohibits takeoffs with “polished frost” — frost buffed to make it smooth — on the wings, stabilizers and control surfaces of several classes of aircraft. The new rule applies to aircraft operated under 14 CFR Part 91 subpart F, and Parts 125 and 135, and makes those operations consistent with Part 121 with respect to its prohibition on operations with polished frost.

The FAA summarizes the new Final Rule this way:

This final rule removes language from part 91 subpart F, and parts 125 and 135, which permits aircraft to takeoff with frost that has been polished to make it smooth (“polished frost”) on critical surfaces. Under the final rule, operators will be required to remove any frost adhering to critical surfaces prior to takeoff.
Additionally, the rule restructures language in parts 91, 125, and 135 to clarify that aircraft must have functioning deicing or anti-icing equipment to fly under IFR into known or forecast light or moderate icing conditions, or under VFR into known light or moderate icing conditions.
The new rules become effective on January 30, 2010. According to the FAA, there are 57 operators flying 188 aircraft affected by the rule changes.

Today the FAA issued a press release in conjunction with announcement of the new rule, which said, in part:
Frost can affect the aerodynamics of wings and control surfaces, and the safest action is to completely remove it. Previous FAA guidance recommended removing all wing frost prior to takeoff, but allowed it to be polished smooth if the aircraft manufacturer’s recommended procedures were followed. But manufacturers never published standards of acceptable smoothness for polished frost, and the FAA has no data to determine exactly how to polish frost to satisfactory smoothness.
“The FAA has advised pilots not to take off with frost or ice contaminating their wings for years because it made good sense,” said FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt. “Now, it’s the law.”

Author:  MACWHO [ Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: More Caravan Icing News

Caravans were crashing after encountering icing conditions. The FAA threatened to pull the 208’s certification for flight in icing unless industry figured out how to reverse the trend. Somebody had to save the Caravan. What operators, Cessna and the FAA did may change the way we all think about icing certification. The Regional Air Cargo Carriers Association ( represents light package carriers usually certificated under FAR Part 135, including over 50 operators of more than 1000 Caravans on contract to FedEx, UPS, DHL and the U.S. Postal Service. Association President Stan Bernstein readily notes the Caravan’s history shows a "tendency to get in trouble in icing," a trend that became "worrisome" and "troubled our industry." Accidents involved pilots from entry-level new hires to the most experienced pilots, dispelling an initial reaction that only low-time pilots were getting in over their head in weather—"even experienced pilots were getting into icing trouble.

Author:  MACWHO [ Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: More Caravan Icing News

Morrison - Foerster Law Firm: Cessna Caravan 208 Icing Accidents. Representing Cessna Aircraft Company as national coordinating counsel in a series of cases pending in various jurisdictions in the United States arising from accidents involving Cessna Caravan 208 aircraft flown in alleged icing conditions. A multi-district litigation is pending in the U.S. District Court of Kansas involving cases transferred from Texas, Utah, Idaho, New York, Maryland, and Washington. In addition, there is an individual state court action in California.

The individual case was Rick Voorhis, owner of Pacific Aircraft Sales, Inc. He was involved in the fatal accident in Banning Pass California. Anyway; Cessna ended up winning the case that his estate was suing Cessna. I don't know exactly what they were going after Cessna for. But Cessna won the case.

What is funny that there wasn't anything published about it.

Author:  Feeder Pilot [ Tue Dec 15, 2009 10:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: More Caravan Icing News

Wolk is real good a wringing settlements out of companies, but the guy is slime and his studies are constructed to win his cases. Aviation safety my ass!

Author:  MACWHO [ Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: More Caravan Icing News

The funny thing is about Wolk; even the other lawyers, either side, laugh at him behind his back because they think the same thing. He is the biggest laughing post there is, but he does laugh all the way to the bank. It has nothing to do with safety, It's all about $$$.

Author:  Feeder Pilot [ Thu Dec 17, 2009 7:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: More Caravan Icing News

MACWHO wrote:
The funny thing is about Wolk; even the other lawyers, either side, laugh at him behind his back because they think the same thing. He is the biggest laughing post there is, but he does laugh all the way to the bank. It has nothing to do with safety, It's all about $$$.

There is this from 2002...

September 16-17 – Free speech & web litigation: AVweb capitulates to defamation suit. Which reminds us of an update we should have posted earlier: readers will recall the defamation lawsuits filed last year by aviation plaintiff’s attorney Arthur Alan Wolk against two editors and four subscribers of the aviation-news website AVweb, all of whom had sharply criticized him after he won a $480 million verdict against Cessna (Sept. 7 and Oct. 12-14, 2001). On July 19 the website rendered to Wolk a thoroughly abject capitulation and apology in connection with his agreement to drop his suit against it. Its statement to readers (link now dead) includes a number of passages which deserve to be read with great care by those to whom the Internet still represents some sort of idealized sanctuary for untrammeled discussion [italicized comments ours]:

“One of Mr. Wolk’s complaints was that we did not supervise our chat room to prevent libelous comments about him being published by our subscribers. We have corrected that. Another of Mr. Wolk’s complaints was that our characterizations instigated some of our subscribers to libel him. We will no longer characterize matters in such a way as to bring apparent discredit upon anyone.” [The consequences of such a formula for the future of hard-hitting journalism can be imagined. And the mind reels at what is involved in the task of avoiding all characterizations which, whether or not libelous themselves, might instigate others to commit that offense. -- ed.]

“While the defense of Mr. Wolk’s lawsuit has been expensive, he nonetheless has been gracious enough to settle with us for a payment to charity. In fact, even in settlement negotiations, when there was a demand for money, it was always to be contributed to charity, none for Mr. Wolk himself. He steadfastly insisted that his lawsuit was not about money and we have come to believe him.” [Why would it be thought surprising that the aim of such a lawsuit might be more to silence certain critics than to obtain cash from them? -- ed.]

As we say, read the whole thing, which lays out at considerable length Mr. Wolk’s reasons for considering himself libeled. AVweb then goes on to publish a sort of protracted advertisement for Mr. Wolk’s services, in the form of tributes and testimonials from grateful clients he has represented in litigation, as well as others. Also included is the painfully self-abasing apology of one of the reader-posters who found himself individually sued by the powerful lawyer — outgunned in every way, and facing who knows what sort of prolonged personal exposure to the cost of litigation. Among the lessons many observers will draw, we think, will be the old one: watch what you say about lawyers. (DURABLE LINK) ... t-2/#0916b

and this... ... tries-inc/

Judge writes scathing opinion about attorney (Wolk); opponent attorney mails opinion to client; losing attorney (Wolk) sues other attorney for defamation. No dice, but even this ludicrous suit does not result in sanctions.

And finally this...

At least he wolked away from it. Perhaps the most despised man in aviation, Arthur Alan Wolk, who as plaintiff's attorney has won enormous awards in suits against Cessna and Piper (and thus has done more to raise the cost of flying more than any other individual) recently crashed his Panther jet off the end of the runway at Kalamazoo. We were curious what sort of sympathy he got, so we tuned into some of the on-line services to see what the cyber-groupies were saying.

Here's a sampling: "It should be real interesting to see who gets sued on this one and why!" "Numerous unlucky individuals, most likely, probably including those who rescued him." "Hmmm, now who will Arthur sue? Maybe the Michigan Highway Dept., berm in wrong location. No, let me see? I've got it, Kazoo Airports Comm., airport in wrong location! Better yet, God! Wind from north rather than south upon receiving takoff clearance." "Guess he could sue Grumman, eh?"

"Come on boys, making jokes about accidents? You're in the wrong forum." "Normally I'd agree with you about the inappropriateness of joking about accidents. But Wolk has made many enemies in his pursuit of wealth at the expense of the aviation industry. It could be argued that flying is a little less accessible to us all because of his activities."

"I'm not condoning jokes in the wake of a crash, after all, an irreplacable aircraft was involved -- sorry about that -- but I'm not asking where flowers should be sent either." "Well said. Sometimes you go to a wake to say goodbye to the dead. Sometimes you go to support a surviving family member. Sometimes you go to make sure." "At the risk of sounding completely heartless: What's the condition of the airplane?"

Author:  pdw [ Wed Dec 30, 2009 6:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: More Caravan Icing News

The $$$ mentioned above is an immense settlement.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2002, 2006 phpBB Group