C207 crash Juneau

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nah. Calling it as I see it.

This was changed from your original, "Nah. I am just not in the inner circle."

So, yeah you are trying to stir the pot. If you have some sort of cogent point that's a valid safety concern, I welcome it. If you're just trying to poke me while we're discussing an accident that's less than a week old, you're not really going to get far, because I'm not really all that concerned about what you have to say about it. What have you done to augment aviation safety in Alaska?
 
bcranston_micdrop.gif

This was changed from your original, "Nah. I am just not in the inner circle."

So, yeah you are trying to stir the pot. If you have some sort of cogent point that's a valid safety concern, I welcome it. If you're just trying to poke me while we're discussing an accident that's less than a week old, you're not really going to get far, because I'm not really all that concerned about what you have to say about it. What have you done to augment aviation safety in Alaska?
 
That last sentence hits home, man. No idea if you got that from somewhere or just came up with it, but that says it all.

Like any writer, I gratuitously stole it from a co-worker, then reworded it slightly.

But it does, doesn't it?

-Fox
 
This was changed from your original, "Nah. I am just not in the inner circle."

So, yeah you are trying to stir the pot. If you have some sort of cogent point that's a valid safety concern, I welcome it. If you're just trying to poke me while we're discussing an accident that's less than a week old, you're not really going to get far, because I'm not really all that concerned about what you have to say about it. What have you done to augment aviation safety in Alaska?
@Seggy is the self proclaimed king of one-liners, who has yet to master one-liners.
 
This was changed from your original, "Nah. I am just not in the inner circle."

So, yeah you are trying to stir the pot. If you have some sort of cogent point that's a valid safety concern, I welcome it. If you're just trying to poke me while we're discussing an accident that's less than a week old, you're not really going to get far, because I'm not really all that concerned about what you have to say about it. What have you done to augment aviation safety in Alaska?

The point is that if folks dare criticize Alaska or the habits up there folks on here jump all over them, yet the criticism is pretty much the same y'all are talking about. You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth as well. You have said you have flown into places where you can't go around, yet, you are preaching about what the FAA needs to do?
 
I don't have an ego to be 'self-proclaimed' at anything.
Nor do you have anything that remotely resembles a point.

One of the spots we landed had a few feet of clearance on each wing tip and you had to approach the end of the runway at a 30deg offset on final.

Do it right and the folks on the island get their mail. Do it wrong and make the news.

I guess because there is zero room for error those folks of that island don't deserve food, medical care, or contact with the outside world.
 
I was curious. The only non-USCG SAR/MEDEVAC helicopter I've seen was a Bell 412 and that's a serious helicopter, but I'm biased. ;)

I need to think about this some more. I know some single pistons can do IFR 135. How about these 207's? What avionics mods were you all talking about? Can you elaborate on the problems with the IFR structure up there?

Thanks.
Pull up skyvector and try to plan an IFR flight from PAJN to PAOH.
The 207s are very capable of IFR. Chelton EFIS. More capable of a brand new C182 with a G1000.
 

Good point! Are you saying that if someone is planning to provide safe, more or less year round transportation in AK that they should use aircraft that are certified for flight in known icing conditions, and do it IFR?
Sure, I understand airports without approaches and VFR 135 companies, but in an area that has such varied and fast changing weather conditions it can be a huge risk at times don't you think?
 
Good point! Are you saying that if someone is planning to provide safe, more or less year round transportation in AK that they should use aircraft that are certified for flight in known icing conditions, and do it IFR?
Sure, I understand airports without approaches and VFR 135 companies, but in an area that has such varied and fast changing weather conditions it can be a huge risk at times don't you think?

I agree. But getting companies to buy new airplanes is easier said than done. Of course, if the FAA made it easier to fly low level routes legally there, this whole thing wouldn't be a problem either.

Island Air Express in Klawock has really gotten the formula figured out perfectly for this sort of mission. IFR airplanes to destinations with crap weather and you can provide good scheduled service without freaking people out or running the risk of CFIT. That idea needs to spread more to the JNU area, but there's a lot of inertia and buying caravans when other companies can keep using their single pistons is a spooky proposition for an operator. Lots of competition down there.
 
And where's the transition from en-route to approach?
Simple, if you can't see the airport and be in a position to land while maintaining visual conditions you got to the alternate. You don't have to use the routing I just threw out for grins, a person can sit down with the airport charts and an enroute chart and find a route that is different as well as provide a lower altitude to transition from.
Or if the weather is VFR there is nothing wrong with doing the flight VFR, but if a pilot is scud running around trying to use local knowledge to find the airport because " they know how to make it work " it will eventually end in tears.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top