DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3131
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: Convair CV-440 Freighter Crash at TOL

Wed Sep 11, 2019 10:54 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Check flying is gone, replaced by electronic clearing. Auto parts is like “hot shot” trucking. Assembly line is about to run out and shut down. The manufacturer calls out the cavalry—last minute operators who don’t have the capital to buy new planes or equip them with stuff like FDR or the like. This was a 62-year old piston airplane—who has R-2800 experience and parts.

GF


Exactly how do you propose fitting an FDR to the plane? Just because it doesn’t have one, doesn’t make it inherently unsafe. Nor do piston engines. At the utilization these planes get, the only way to make money is to use older affordable airplanes, and have pilots who can handle them.
From my cold, dead hands
 
F9Animal
Posts: 4243
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:13 am

Re: Convair CV-440 Freighter Crash at TOL

Wed Sep 11, 2019 11:13 pm

My thoughts regarding the questions about a possible shoddy operation.... First, to fly old birds like this requires alot of good old fashioned mechanical skills. It's like an old car, it requires good maintenance to keep it running. I won't jump to conclusions here, because these old planes require in my opinion, stick and rudder pilots.

I am saddened to learn the crew didn't survive. Also saddened we lost a classic plane as well. Anyone know the weather conditions at the time the plane went down?
I Am A Different Animal!!
 
njxc500
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 6:47 pm

Re: Convair CV-440 Freighter Crash at TOL

Thu Sep 12, 2019 12:04 am

KTOL 110852Z 22005KT 10SM CLR 23/19 A3013 RMK AO2 SLP199 T02330194 52004

Weather looks good at the time.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3674
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Convair CV-440 Freighter Crash at TOL

Thu Sep 12, 2019 12:31 am

DiamondFlyer wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Check flying is gone, replaced by electronic clearing. Auto parts is like “hot shot” trucking. Assembly line is about to run out and shut down. The manufacturer calls out the cavalry—last minute operators who don’t have the capital to buy new planes or equip them with stuff like FDR or the like. This was a 62-year old piston airplane—who has R-2800 experience and parts.

GF


Exactly how do you propose fitting an FDR to the plane? Just because it doesn’t have one, doesn’t make it inherently unsafe. Nor do piston engines. At the utilization these planes get, the only way to make money is to use older affordable airplanes, and have pilots who can handle them.


Probably cannot fit recorders and that’s a problem. Without recorders, finding the causal factors will be difficult or impossible, hence we won’t be able to have the tools to prevent a repeat accident. That’s a loss of safety potential. Virtually no other commercial operation would get away with large aircraft lacking recorders. Heck, bizjets require them.

Planes aren’t steam locos like the UP’s Big Boy you can start up and fly. The technology and performance on a Convair 440 is out of date and should be put to an end. Try looking at OEI performance on one. If the auto industry needs the parts train, they need to pony up for at least a semi-modern fleet. Say, a converted Mad Dog or CL850 conversion, at least a on-off FDX charter.

GF
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3131
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: Convair CV-440 Freighter Crash at TOL

Thu Sep 12, 2019 12:34 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
DiamondFlyer wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Check flying is gone, replaced by electronic clearing. Auto parts is like “hot shot” trucking. Assembly line is about to run out and shut down. The manufacturer calls out the cavalry—last minute operators who don’t have the capital to buy new planes or equip them with stuff like FDR or the like. This was a 62-year old piston airplane—who has R-2800 experience and parts.

GF


Exactly how do you propose fitting an FDR to the plane? Just because it doesn’t have one, doesn’t make it inherently unsafe. Nor do piston engines. At the utilization these planes get, the only way to make money is to use older affordable airplanes, and have pilots who can handle them.


Probably cannot fit recorders and that’s a problem. Without recorders, finding the causal factors will be difficult or impossible, hence we won’t be able to have the tools to prevent a repeat accident. That’s a loss of safety potential. Virtually no other commercial operation would get away with large aircraft lacking recorders. Heck, bizjets require them.

Planes aren’t steam locos like the UP’s Big Boy you can start up and fly. The technology and performance on a Convair 440 is out of date and should be put to an end. Try looking at OEI performance on one. If the auto industry needs the parts train, they need to pony up for at least a semi-modern fleet. Say, a converted Mad Dog or CL850 conversion, at least a on-off FDX charter.

GF


The MD80 conversions are terrible for auto parts. There’s a reason USAjet bought 2 727s after already operating the MD80. Couldn’t carry much more but cost more to operate.

Sure, passengers shouldn’t be on a piston Convair, but I see no problem with freight. The market has all but killed it anyway.
From my cold, dead hands
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 4332
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: Convair CV-440 Freighter Crash at TOL

Thu Sep 12, 2019 12:36 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
DiamondFlyer wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Check flying is gone, replaced by electronic clearing. Auto parts is like “hot shot” trucking. Assembly line is about to run out and shut down. The manufacturer calls out the cavalry—last minute operators who don’t have the capital to buy new planes or equip them with stuff like FDR or the like. This was a 62-year old piston airplane—who has R-2800 experience and parts.

GF


Exactly how do you propose fitting an FDR to the plane? Just because it doesn’t have one, doesn’t make it inherently unsafe. Nor do piston engines. At the utilization these planes get, the only way to make money is to use older affordable airplanes, and have pilots who can handle them.


Probably cannot fit recorders and that’s a problem. Without recorders, finding the causal factors will be difficult or impossible, hence we won’t be able to have the tools to prevent a repeat accident. That’s a loss of safety potential. Virtually no other commercial operation would get away with large aircraft lacking recorders. Heck, bizjets require them.

Planes aren’t steam locos like the UP’s Big Boy you can start up and fly. The technology and performance on a Convair 440 is out of date and should be put to an end. Try looking at OEI performance on one. If the auto industry needs the parts train, they need to pony up for at least a semi-modern fleet. Say, a converted Mad Dog or CL850 conversion, at least a on-off FDX charter.

GF

.....And that's why IFL and VTM have sprung for the CRJ2F. Nearly identical payload and volume as the Convair, slightly more modern. Plus the cargo doesn't bitch and moan about the window height.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21390
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Convair CV-440 Freighter Crash at TOL

Thu Sep 12, 2019 12:40 am

DiamondFlyer wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Check flying is gone, replaced by electronic clearing. Auto parts is like “hot shot” trucking. Assembly line is about to run out and shut down. The manufacturer calls out the cavalry—last minute operators who don’t have the capital to buy new planes or equip them with stuff like FDR or the like. This was a 62-year old piston airplane—who has R-2800 experience and parts.

Exactly how do you propose fitting an FDR to the plane? Just because it doesn’t have one, doesn’t make it inherently unsafe. Nor do piston engines. At the utilization these planes get, the only way to make money is to use older affordable airplanes, and have pilots who can handle them.

Operators who don't have the capital probably also don't lead the industry in terms of best maintenance practices, although we can't say this crash has anything to do with maintenance or not.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6975
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

Re: Convair CV-440 Freighter Crash at TOL

Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:30 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Probably cannot fit recorders and that’s a problem. Without recorders, finding the causal factors will be difficult or impossible, hence we won’t be able to have the tools to prevent a repeat accident. That’s a loss of safety potential. Virtually no other commercial operation would get away with large aircraft lacking recorders. Heck, bizjets require them.
GF

This was an old SAS plane. I remember that some 45 years ago SAS was told to install FDRs on their 25 strong CV-440 fleet. But they got a waiver because they had operated those planes with no serious difficulty for 20 years, and they would soon be retired.

After retirement - I think it was in 1978 - a book was written about the quarter century of CV-440 ops by SAS. I remember that the book pointed out that a main problem on the CV-440 was erratic cabin pressurization. It was usually traced to an outflow valve being clocked with tobacco tar. Those were the days.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1225
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Convair CV-440 Freighter Crash at TOL

Thu Sep 12, 2019 2:01 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
DiamondFlyer wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Check flying is gone, replaced by electronic clearing. Auto parts is like “hot shot” trucking. Assembly line is about to run out and shut down. The manufacturer calls out the cavalry—last minute operators who don’t have the capital to buy new planes or equip them with stuff like FDR or the like. This was a 62-year old piston airplane—who has R-2800 experience and parts.

GF


Exactly how do you propose fitting an FDR to the plane? Just because it doesn’t have one, doesn’t make it inherently unsafe. Nor do piston engines. At the utilization these planes get, the only way to make money is to use older affordable airplanes, and have pilots who can handle them.


Probably cannot fit recorders and that’s a problem. Without recorders, finding the causal factors will be difficult or impossible, hence we won’t be able to have the tools to prevent a repeat accident. That’s a loss of safety potential. Virtually no other commercial operation would get away with large aircraft lacking recorders. Heck, bizjets require them.

Planes aren’t steam locos like the UP’s Big Boy you can start up and fly. The technology and performance on a Convair 440 is out of date and should be put to an end. Try looking at OEI performance on one. If the auto industry needs the parts train, they need to pony up for at least a semi-modern fleet. Say, a converted Mad Dog or CL850 conversion, at least a on-off FDX charter.

GF

Of course you can fit recorders in a CV-440, or any plane for that matter.
Now, does it make financial sense? Maybe not, but it's doable. Heck, FX did upgrade their ATRs to add more data point for the data recorders some years ago.
 
CoThG
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:24 pm

Re: Convair CV-440 Freighter Crash at TOL

Thu Sep 12, 2019 2:54 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
DiamondFlyer wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Check flying is gone, replaced by electronic clearing. Auto parts is like “hot shot” trucking. Assembly line is about to run out and shut down. The manufacturer calls out the cavalry—last minute operators who don’t have the capital to buy new planes or equip them with stuff like FDR or the like. This was a 62-year old piston airplane—who has R-2800 experience and parts.

GF


Exactly how do you propose fitting an FDR to the plane? Just because it doesn’t have one, doesn’t make it inherently unsafe. Nor do piston engines. At the utilization these planes get, the only way to make money is to use older affordable airplanes, and have pilots who can handle them.


Probably cannot fit recorders and that’s a problem. Without recorders, finding the causal factors will be difficult or impossible, hence we won’t be able to have the tools to prevent a repeat accident. That’s a loss of safety potential. Virtually no other commercial operation would get away with large aircraft lacking recorders. Heck, bizjets require them.

Planes aren’t steam locos like the UP’s Big Boy you can start up and fly. The technology and performance on a Convair 440 is out of date and should be put to an end. Try looking at OEI performance on one. If the auto industry needs the parts train, they need to pony up for at least a semi-modern fleet. Say, a converted Mad Dog or CL850 conversion, at least a on-off FDX charter.

GF


It does just fine on one engine....https://youtu.be/tnqDYa3Lhog?t=233
 
crownvic
Posts: 2465
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:16 pm

Re: Convair CV-440 Freighter Crash at TOL

Thu Sep 12, 2019 3:21 am

Spacepope wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
DiamondFlyer wrote:

Exactly how do you propose fitting an FDR to the plane? Just because it doesn’t have one, doesn’t make it inherently unsafe. Nor do piston engines. At the utilization these planes get, the only way to make money is to use older affordable airplanes, and have pilots who can handle them.


Probably cannot fit recorders and that’s a problem. Without recorders, finding the causal factors will be difficult or impossible, hence we won’t be able to have the tools to prevent a repeat accident. That’s a loss of safety potential. Virtually no other commercial operation would get away with large aircraft lacking recorders. Heck, bizjets require them.

Planes aren’t steam locos like the UP’s Big Boy you can start up and fly. The technology and performance on a Convair 440 is out of date and should be put to an end. Try looking at OEI performance on one. If the auto industry needs the parts train, they need to pony up for at least a semi-modern fleet. Say, a converted Mad Dog or CL850 conversion, at least a on-off FDX charter.

GF

.....And that's why IFL and VTM have sprung for the CRJ2F. Nearly identical payload and volume as the Convair, slightly more modern. Plus the cargo doesn't bitch and moan about the window height.


Although I do not have access to the data, I would really find this hard to believe. Now, if you are referring to a CV-440, possibly a closer comparison, but i would highly doubt the CRJ would even come close to hauling what a CV-580 can do. I used to run an airline with a fleet of CV-580s that you could never overload including at altitude. The plane was completely overpowered and could handle anything you threw at it. The CRJ on the other hand is frequently payload restricted and has an unforgiving wing at airports with high altitude.
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 4332
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: Convair CV-440 Freighter Crash at TOL

Thu Sep 12, 2019 12:47 pm

crownvic wrote:
Spacepope wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Probably cannot fit recorders and that’s a problem. Without recorders, finding the causal factors will be difficult or impossible, hence we won’t be able to have the tools to prevent a repeat accident. That’s a loss of safety potential. Virtually no other commercial operation would get away with large aircraft lacking recorders. Heck, bizjets require them.

Planes aren’t steam locos like the UP’s Big Boy you can start up and fly. The technology and performance on a Convair 440 is out of date and should be put to an end. Try looking at OEI performance on one. If the auto industry needs the parts train, they need to pony up for at least a semi-modern fleet. Say, a converted Mad Dog or CL850 conversion, at least a on-off FDX charter.

GF

.....And that's why IFL and VTM have sprung for the CRJ2F. Nearly identical payload and volume as the Convair, slightly more modern. Plus the cargo doesn't bitch and moan about the window height.


Although I do not have access to the data, I would really find this hard to believe. Now, if you are referring to a CV-440, possibly a closer comparison, but i would highly doubt the CRJ would even come close to hauling what a CV-580 can do. I used to run an airline with a fleet of CV-580s that you could never overload including at altitude. The plane was completely overpowered and could handle anything you threw at it. The CRJ on the other hand is frequently payload restricted and has an unforgiving wing at airports with high altitude.


Available information shows both have a max payload of about 15,000 pounds. CV580 has a little more volume though.

CRJ2F specs: https://www2.bombardier.com/Used_Aircra ... ations.jsp
CV580 specs: https://www.aircharterserviceusa.com/ai ... vaircv-580
The last of the famous international playboys

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos