totter

Hi Rob, Been in many Vista Liners (aka Twin Otter w/ big windows). The view to to side is greatly increased, of course, but the view down isn't increased. Known DZ ops that would like one for tandems, since video in aircraft would be better. The down side is that a Vista Liner weighs about 1000 lbs more then a stock Twin Otter.

I looked that one up. Falcon Helicopters in Longmont. Power line inspection, it's what they do. Imagine that, a helicopter company that does power line inspections hovering over the power lines!

Have you looked in the AFM? If it states anywhere in it that the door may be removed for flight you're golden. No other approval needed. Check specifically in the Limitations section. If there's even just a blurb about airspeed with door removed this would be good. I just checked and the FAA has changed AC105. The list of aircraft approved for flight with door removed has been removed itself from the Advisory Circular. It does state, though, that the decision can be left to your local FSDO for this. You couldn't be in a better state for actual help from your FSDO.

Had an Avioncs Inspector in Vegas, Jerry, whose favorite saying was "your locally owned and operated FAA FSDO"

Luckily Shannon you're in Alaska where the FAA is very user friendly and still willing to due Field Approvals. Now you may be able to use an install from another model Cessna as your Acceptable Data when doing the 337. (Acceptable Data is the one thing that the FAA looks for when using the Field Approval process and using a previously approved 337 is the easiest way to obtain this data. Just make sure at the end of the Description paragraph in the ICA it states "this install is similar to the previously approved Form 337, dated ??/??/????, on N?????). Being that the basic design of small single engine piston Cessnas are similar. A lexan door install in a 182 could probably suffice. Ask your FSDO.

Correct, I've never known a pilot who has used (added) flaps on jump run. Except that one, once.

I've never known any pilot who put flaps in on jump run in a Twin Otter, except one, and he actually stalled the plane. This was the first and only time that this pilot used flaps on jump run. He had a big group exiting, think it was a 16-18 way, and he knew the door was going to be loaded, so he thought that adding flaps would help. He only put in 10 degrees. Weight shifted aft faster than he could compensate, nose came up and airplane stalled. He never used flaps after that and never had anymore issues. Even with big ways. When you start adding flaps you change the angle of attack that the plane flys at. And the angle of attack change is significant compared to a vast majority of aircraft out there. This is the reason why if you look at the LH wing of a Twin Otter you'll notice that it has two Stall Warning vanes. One slightly lower than the other. The lower one is active continuously and the upper when only works after 12 degrees of flaps have been added.

Tradewinds Sky Sports, in Washington N.C., is the only DZ shown with that type of runway layout.

Increased rate of climb, especially after fueling. With the lower powered engines the trade off for better climb performance was to carry less people. There comes a point where stuffing that last 3 or 4 jumpers in doesn't make economical sense because it slows the climb to altitude so much that the fuel burn used costs more than what was made having the extra people.

The aircraft was certified with the door already installed from the factory so you would find any such requirement in the POH.

So all those years that I was fueling Fayard's Triple 9G what was I sticking in that hole in the top of the nacelle? This was a C90. But you admitted that the C has a nacelle filler. All the times that I fueled and worked on N2000E, Skydive Crosskeys one King Air, an A90, why was I changing the electric boost pump in the bottom of the nacelle when it would fail? Yes, Boost Pump. And fueling it thru that hole in the top of the nacelle. Or Delmarva's B90, what was that hole for on top of the nacelle? And, if you operate a PT6A for more than 10 hours without the Boost Pump turned on then the Engine Driven Fuel Pump, which is the one with the shaft, needs to be overhauled. Which is why the boost pumps are always on. (I am not referring to the High Pressure Fuel Pump that can be, but is not always installed). Ah, where did I say 100/200 series? Where in the story did it say 100/200 series? It didn't even mention the aircraft type. I've never piloted or worked on an E, F, 100, 200, 300 or 350 series King Air, so I never mentioned them. If this aircraft was an A, B or C then my statements hold true. I do like how you edited your post to remove the passage that I quoted. See ya

The older model King Airs (As, Bs) use gauges for the nacelles that are scaled in quarter increments. E, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 and FULL. 2 gauges per side, one for nacelle and one for wing. The fuel quantity sending units are resistance based, float operated units that can and do go out of calibration easily. Now if this were a C model it would have one gauge for each side with a switch to select either the nacelle quantity or total quantity for the side. (Wing and nacelle together). If the switch were set to total the pilot could have mistaken it for nacelle quantity thought he he enough in the nacelles when a fair quantity was actually in the wings. Without transferring it the nacelles would have been run dry. And you can see quite easily into the nacelle tank of a King Air thru the filler. You would need a flashlight, but you can see the Boost Pump at the bottom when the tank is full. The one thing with a King Air is that there is only one fuel pick up in the nacelle tank, and that is the Boost Pump which is centered in the middle of the tank (just forward of the gear well). If the decent is steep enough and the fuel level low enough the fuel will slosh forward making the pump then cavitate.

Hey Rob, I think he might be mistaken. Is he sure that he remembers it as a Twin Otter? Propeller brakes, or a way to keep the prop from turning with the engine running is more widely used with the larger turboprops in ATRs, C-130s, etc. Small PT6s just don't have the room internally or when all cowled up. There is another reason why you would not want a propeller brake on a Twin Otter. The -6 has a time limit for having the prop in feather (i.e. no airflow) because the hot exhaust on the wing will damage the wing permanently. You need the prop blast, even at idle, to help keep the wing cool. Having the prop not turning would have the same effect. As to starting a PT6 with the prop not turning, both of you are right. It can be done, just get the hell out of the way once the prop is let go. It does increase the start temp, so if you had a weak battery you could run the risk of a hot start. Is that a misprint with the engine model? There's no such animal as a -24.

The Direct Operating Cost is all relative to the age of the aircraft and how it was maintained and operated as well as how it is going to be operated. I've had the privilege of being responsible for the maintenance on 14 Twin Otters, 4 Caravans and 1 Kodiak. The Twins are all legacy 300s, the oldest Caravan is a 2009 and the Kodiak a 2012. The Caravans were by far the cheapest to maintain (at about $75/flight hour), the Kodiak next ($85/ flight hour) and the Twin being the most expensive (at about $300 per flight hour) If you went head to head with a new Caravan EX and a -400 the MX cost would be similar, but the operting cost for the -400 would be higher. Two engines as compared to one. Now the typical Twin Otter is the DZ whore, it's been around so long it's been jumped by everyone. Most likely a -100 or -200 that was built somewhere between 1966 and 1972. And most nearing the end of their fatigue life. Yes, these would be and are very costly to be maintained. Same applies to the early A and B model King Airs (very early LJ serial numbers). And I would agree that if you had an early model ('84-'87) A series Caravan you would also be looking at high maintenance costs. Landing gear, wing struts all being due for replacement and all the expensive NDT inspections that are due. But the King Air and the Twin Otter all have their own life limited items and special inspections. To get an aircraft that will not need any major maintenance for quite some time will cost, though. By far the early King Airs are the cheapest $200 - 400k. An early Caravan around $400k. A 100/200 series Twin Otter $400 - $800k. 300 series -6 over $1 million. '08-'11 Caravan about $1.5 million. New Caravan EX $2.5 million and -400 series Twin Otter $4 million. So it mainly comes down to "do you want to spend your money now or later?" As far as the Caravan crashes have been concerned most have been due to flying into Known Icing when they shouldn't have been or CT blade failure. The last being Pratt and Whitney's doing, not Cessna's. I've heard that the FAA is going to release a new AD on the -114A engines form this reason. The FedEx crash 5 months ago was due to CT blade failure. I had a jump 208 years ago that chunked it's CT blades and I wouldn't doubt that Transport Canada will find this to be the cause of the Toronto crash. The occurrence is very similar to the FedEx crash.

A Canadian STC is a Canadian STC just as a FAA STC is just FAA. The only way to use a Canadian STC in the US or visa versa is to have it standardized. That means that the STC holder would have to submit the paperwork to the other countries authority and have them accept it. Basically going thru the STC process again. Good guys at Sealand. Bill does good work.

How about the "just ate a bean burrito and passing thru 8,000 smell test? Need to know how quickly it'll vacate the cabin. I was an earlier skeptic, but it's looking good. Hopefully the FAA sequester will not hold you up.

If you're a recently licensed jumper then you SHOULD already have a copy of the BSRs.

No. He's Canadian, lives in New Jersey and his home DZ is Crosskeys.

This is not a scam. Rob was injured during a BASE jump. He's stuck in a hospital with no insurance and his friends are trying to get him back home from Thailand so that he can receive better care. It is set up thru PayPal, which is a trusted site. If you see one other than PayPal I would be leary.

Techically a Cessna door is a Cessna door. Whether an A model or a P. But as far as the STC paperwork is concerned they can be greatly different. With an STC, Canadian or US, there needs to be an applicabilty listing which denotes what aircraft the STC can be installed on. This listing not only includes the aircraft type, but also the model and sub-model or mark, (DHC-6-100, 200, 300; 208A, B; 182A, B, C). If your specific aircraft model is not shown you can not install the mod. The L-STC (Limited) is Canada's version of the Form 337. This is used when an operator would like to install a mod on an aircraft that they own and do not plan on selling the mod to other owners. Same thinking as the 337, but with having to go thru the STC process. These are serial number specific and can only be installed on the serial numbers listed on the STC. So even if he finds an L-STC for jump mods he would still need to go thru the whole STC approval process, less R&D if he finds one for a P. Sounds like giving the guys at air x a cal is the way to go.

The going rate for a violation these days is; $10,000 for each flight with that violate times the number of violations. The news article mentioned 3. Each one is its own violation. $10,000 x 153 flight x 3 violations = $4,590,000 in potential fines.

The battery is located in the aft baggage compartment, under floor just behind the bulkhead.

In a Twin Otter the Fire Extinguishers are connected to the respective L & R DC Busses, which means that aircraft power had to of been turn on. Who ever did this knew Twin Otters and knew how to turn the power on. You need to flip two switches in order to turn power on and both swicthes are the "Pull and Select" type and both are not in a conspicuous location. They're above the pilot's windshield. As far as expensive, YES, $2k to $5k per bottle,depending on where you get them from. Plus the Yellow Blow Out Diskes need to be replaced. As for replacing them, NO, it takes about 15 minutes per bottle. And clean up is nothing, the bottles are filled with Halon.

Cool! Thanks for the read.

? Is this an uprated -114 or is this the Blackhawk -42 mod?