List of planes that aren't good in icing

Isn't this thread a little like saying, "let's list the airplanes that might kill you if you crash with them"?

Seriously...let's name aircraft that are GOOD in icing instead, because icing pretty much sucks completely regardless of what kind of aerospace vehicle you're in.
 
Ok...Lame "Star Trek" reference..

But the shorts reminds me of the Borg's Space Ship..That giant cube that speeds through the galaxy.

What do you get when a Shorts gets in icing? An ice cube?
 
Ok...Lame "Star Trek" reference..

But the shorts reminds me of the Borg's Space Ship..That giant cube that speeds through the galaxy.

What do you get when a Shorts gets in icing? An ice cube?

:laff:

That's the best thing I've heard all week!


"The Shorts? Isn't that the box the Saab was delivered in?"


Ahh, the poor Shortie. Mercilessly riduculed, arguably the funniest looking airliner ever, yet crews fiercly loved that ugly duckling.
 
The Aerostar was bad. The Baron was pretty good. Cessna 310's would have been good if it wasn't for the large tip tanks.
 
(sigh) Kids.

The Shorts is the box that the Twin Otter came in! Not the Saab. That joke was born before a lot of you were!
 
It has been awhile since I read anything about the Eagle ATR crash, but don't they believe they passed through a pocket of some freezing rain? Meaning really big SLD that would have caused trouble on nearly anything?

Regarding Caravans, I have never flown in one, but from speaking with those that have I understand that many of the icing accidents could have been avoided if the pilots had been less careless with their speed control while in the ice. (Meaning too slow for the conditions.)

Speed is your friend in the ice.
 
I'm just trying to figure out who on earth things holding with flaps extended (especially in icing!) is a good idea. I do know the ATR drivers now have to look for a certain pattern of ice formation on the windshield now to recognize the stuff that brought down the Eagle flight.


The CRJ was overall pretty decent in icing, especially if you were at speed. If you spend alot of time in slower manuevering in the icing getting ready for approach, you can feel the tail and stab start getting sluggish. If we were picking up some good ice for a lengthy period on the approach, I would brief on the missed climbing to 10,000 and accelerating to 330 to shed the ice on the tail before diving back in.
 
I'm just trying to figure out who on earth things holding with flaps extended (especially in icing!) is a good idea. I do know the ATR drivers now have to look for a certain pattern of ice formation on the windshield now to recognize the stuff that brought down the Eagle flight.

The CVR from the eagle flight had the crew talking about the dramatic nose-up attitude they were getting at their holding airspeed, and I think they put in the flaps to get the nose down a little. Eagle's ATR training is now *incredibly* detailed and stringent on limitations on icing conditions, speeds, and protection required.
 
I personally don't remember the CRJ being "pretty decent" in any flight condition -- icing or otherwise. That thing was a piece of junk from the minute you pushed it back from the gate... but that's just my opinion. <grin>

As for the cruciform tail, I flew the Jetstream for around 1500 hours and never really had any problems. In the early 90s the airplane was modified so as to limit flap extension. That fixed 99% of the issues supposedly. Nonetheless we were warned in training that if we ever got what we perceived to be a tail-stall as a result of ice, it would probably happen when selecting full-flaps. Retract flaps to the prior setting and all will be well.

Thankfully I never had to try it!
 
Any plane can be bad in icing with the right(wrong) pilot behind the stick.
Case in point......

.....during my Commercial training I was going to go on a solo cross country during an IMC day with the temp at 8C. As I flew into the clouds...

I'm not that nervous about icing anymore and I have flown into the clouds many times under similar conditions.

If the temp is less than 10c DO NOT FLY IN CLOUDS (if your plane is not certified for flight in icing conditions).

The scary thing is that pilots who fly "approved" airplanes know this rule of thumb, and the pilots who don't know it are the ones that should.

This is one of those things that "low time" advocates don't tell/know. Building +/- 2000 hours in the real world prior to going 121 will teach you. Somewhere in those 2000 hours, you have encountered something yourself or heard hundreds of stories from others that teach you what is good and what is BAD. It is not something that can be gained in 50 hours in an RJ sim checking off training squares. Yes even lowly CFIs on cross countries meet corp and freight pilots that they learn things from.

On the Caravan note: I'd like to see data for icing accidents broken out by time frame. I worked for a very large 'van operator in the late '80s and you never heard of icing "accidents." We all knew they were ice magnets, but they still worked fine. For some reason, in the last 10 years or so, people started saying it was dangerous. If there was a problem with the design it would be present from the beginning. The only thing that has changed is the experience level of the people hired to fly them.

By the way, there is a video taken from a Brasilia passenger that shows it rolling following an icing encounter coming back from the Bahamas.

This isn't the video (but it's out there..)
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20010319-0

Here's one that didn't turn out well.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...l=7&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5
 
Back
Top