crjflyboy
Topic Author
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Status of Tecnam P2012 Traveller?

Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:59 am

Despite years of development and being inside of the USA since September 2019, the plane has not been certified and is not flying for CAPE AIR.

A litany of reasons have been given as to the delays ... none that make sense given 5 plus years lead time for the introduction of the plane.

Does a serious issue exist with the plane ? Under powered ? Icing ? Stability or flight characteristics ?

What is the real story ?
Last edited by SQ22 on Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Title was misleading
 
MO11
Posts: 1264
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2017 5:07 pm

Re: TECNAM P2012 TRAVELLER PROBLEMS

Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:40 am

The airplane is certified.

If you're the first airline to put a brand new type of airplane into service, there are going to be issues. The FAA isn't going to speed this along.
 
crjflyboy
Topic Author
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: TECNAM P2012 TRAVELLER PROBLEMS

Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:58 am

From my understanding .. the FAA only certified it to fly to the USA

https://thepointsguy.com/news/cape-air- ... r-flights/
 
MO11
Posts: 1264
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2017 5:07 pm

Re: TECNAM P2012 TRAVELLER PROBLEMS

Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:15 am

crjflyboy wrote:
From my understanding .. the FAA only certified it to fly to the USA

https://thepointsguy.com/news/cape-air- ... r-flights/


From the above article:

Cape Air took delivery of its first two Travellers in July and, following receipt of FAA certification.

The airplanes have been flying around the Cape. If you want to buy one and fly it under Part 91 right now, you can.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1482
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: TECNAM P2012 TRAVELLER PROBLEMS

Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:15 am

crjflyboy wrote:
From my understanding .. the FAA only certified it to fly to the USA

https://thepointsguy.com/news/cape-air- ... r-flights/

Per your own link:
Cape Air took delivery of its first two Travellers in July and, following receipt of FAA certification, Tecnam ferried the aircraft on a three-day journey from its Capua, Italy, factory to Hyannis in September.

The Tecnam P2012 is certified by the FAA to legally fly in the US (not just to the US); Type Certificate Data Sheet No. A00076CE Revision 3 dated January 24, 2020.

Can it be introduced in commercial operation? That's another story.
As was said, Cape Air is the first commercial operator; so, it's an official EIS and that most likely take a little more time than originally thought.

Also, given the recent "revelations" about the FAA, maybe they are triple-checking the paperwork; who knows?
 
crjflyboy
Topic Author
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: TECNAM P2012 TRAVELLER PROBLEMS

Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:41 am

From appearances ,,, the plane is already flying and generating revenue in the Seychelles

https://zilair.com/fleet/tecnam-p2012-traveller/
 
N6168E
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 5:57 am

Re: TECNAM P2012 TRAVELLER PROBLEMS

Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:29 pm

There is some recent action in the last several days. N133CA has flown 2/8, 2/9, and 2/10. N244CA flew yesterday (2/9), N255CA flew on the 8'th and N266CA flew 5 times in early January but hasn't been seen since.
N288CA and N411CA are registered to Tecnam USA and have been flying in Italy. N566CA was registered on 1/15 and N699CA was registered on 1/23 to Tecnam USA, but FlightAware has not shown any flight activity yet.
 
crjflyboy
Topic Author
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: TECNAM P2012 TRAVELLER PROBLEMS

Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:09 pm

 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2877
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: TECNAM P2012 TRAVELLER PROBLEMS

Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:19 pm

Slightly off topic but the registrations for these aircraft are wild.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10020
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: TECNAM P2012 TRAVELLER PROBLEMS

Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:26 pm

When you are a small airline and the first operator of a type in the country getting through all the proper certifications can take forever. Just look how long it took Silver to get their ATRs into service (they were first operator of -600 variants in US). You have little priority and ability to push things through the FAA bureaucracy.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1482
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: TECNAM P2012 TRAVELLER PROBLEMS

Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:29 pm

crjflyboy wrote:

How's that interesting? 4 ads, 3 of which are from the OEM itself and the other for a (the?) OEM-authorized dealer in the US; all for brand new aircraft.
 
User avatar
BawliBooch
Posts: 1411
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:24 am

Re: TECNAM P2012 TRAVELLER PROBLEMS

Tue Feb 11, 2020 1:13 am

Hmmm!

I SWEAR I saw some P2012 Tecnams operating in Indonesia.
Mr.Kapoor's favorite poodle!
 
VS11
Posts: 1519
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: TECNAM P2012 TRAVELLER PROBLEMS

Tue Feb 11, 2020 1:21 am

As there are no problems referenced here, just conjectures , can we have the title changed?
 
crjflyboy
Topic Author
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: TECNAM P2012 TRAVELLER PROBLEMS

Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:32 am

WayexTDI wrote:
crjflyboy wrote:

How's that interesting? 4 ads, 3 of which are from the OEM itself and the other for a (the?) OEM-authorized dealer in the US; all for brand new aircraft.


What is interesting is that CAPE ordered these planes and TECNAM is producing the planes and CAPE appears to deferring the delivery of aircraft.
 
crjflyboy
Topic Author
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: TECNAM P2012 TRAVELLER PROBLEMS

Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:51 am

Polot wrote:
When you are a small airline and the first operator of a type in the country getting through all the proper certifications can take forever. Just look how long it took Silver to get their ATRs into service (they were first operator of -600 variants in US). You have little priority and ability to push things through the FAA bureaucracy.


The ATR still suffers from icing issues.
 
FGITD
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: TECNAM P2012 TRAVELLER PROBLEMS

Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:57 am

So because the manufacturer is selling aircraft (or at least trying to) to someone other than their most prominent customer...the conclusion is that there's problems with the aircraft?
 
ZazuPIT
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:32 pm

Re: TECNAM P2012 TRAVELLER PROBLEMS

Tue Feb 11, 2020 3:10 am

crjflyboy wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
crjflyboy wrote:

How's that interesting? 4 ads, 3 of which are from the OEM itself and the other for a (the?) OEM-authorized dealer in the US; all for brand new aircraft.


What is interesting is that CAPE ordered these planes and TECNAM is producing the planes and CAPE appears to deferring the delivery of aircraft.


What's with the CAPS? You seem to dislike this aircraft which you know nothing about, no?
 
crjflyboy
Topic Author
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: TECNAM P2012 TRAVELLER PROBLEMS

Tue Feb 11, 2020 3:14 am

FGITD wrote:
So because the manufacturer is selling aircraft (or at least trying to) to someone other than their most prominent customer...the conclusion is that there's problems with the aircraft?


It's not a sophisticated aircraft ... I'm simply asking what are the issues with it that CAPE and TECNAM can not solve to allow it to fly revenue generation flights.

https://www.flyingmag.com/we-fly-tecnam ... traveller/
 
alasizon
Posts: 2193
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:57 pm

Re: TECNAM P2012 TRAVELLER PROBLEMS

Tue Feb 11, 2020 4:38 am

crjflyboy wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
crjflyboy wrote:

How's that interesting? 4 ads, 3 of which are from the OEM itself and the other for a (the?) OEM-authorized dealer in the US; all for brand new aircraft.


What is interesting is that CAPE ordered these planes and TECNAM is producing the planes and CAPE appears to deferring the delivery of aircraft.


None of the ads have a registration, they are just up as another avenue for Tecnam to try and sell additional frames.

There is nothing wrong with the aircraft, despite what you appear to believe. Certification takes time, particularly when it is a completely new type and the parties involved are an airline and manufacturer that don't have a lot of clout with the FAA.
Airport (noun) - A construction site which airplanes tend to frequent
 
User avatar
eeightning
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2019 10:23 am

Re: TECNAM P2012 TRAVELLER PROBLEMS

Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:22 am

Ok, I’ll speculate. Both Lycoming and Continental have tried to get “fadec” engines into service but they’re always “recalled” (using car terms now). When I saw the specs on ieo-580, I was surprised that they would try to go directly to full fadec. The engine needs fadec to achieve it’s performance numbers at only 2500rpm, and more importantly to achieve reliable durability when operated by pilots who don’t have the experience or bandwith to operate these engines the way full time f/e’s nursed the dc-6 engines around. These things are festooned with sensors. Bet the come back from every other flight with sensor or ecm driven write-up.

Thats the speculation from a recip lover with 20 years dom experience pt 135 piston. It would be great to hear from someone 1st or 2nd hand at Cape.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 4639
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Status of Tecnam P2012 Traveller?

Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:01 pm

Clearly, no one here has dealt with the FAA to get an approval for OpsSpecs. It’s quite normal to wait up to 4-6 months for an LOA to operate a new bizjet that’s certified and delivered to the customer. Anyone who thinks the FAA works in haste is clueless. New Global took us six months and a call to Washington to get RNP approval for NAT HLA.
 
User avatar
eeightning
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2019 10:23 am

Re: TECNAM P2012 TRAVELLER PROBLEMS

Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:06 pm

I correct myself. The engine is called TEO-540. Rated at 375hp for takeoff at 2575 rpm and up to 58” map for a bmep of 210 psi.

Like, wow! There’s no other certified production engines running at 210 psi on 100 octane fuel. R-2800s on dc-6/cv-440 were 240psi on 115 octane
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1482
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: TECNAM P2012 TRAVELLER PROBLEMS

Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:07 pm

crjflyboy wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
crjflyboy wrote:

How's that interesting? 4 ads, 3 of which are from the OEM itself and the other for a (the?) OEM-authorized dealer in the US; all for brand new aircraft.


What is interesting is that CAPE ordered these planes and TECNAM is producing the planes and CAPE appears to deferring the delivery of aircraft.

I still don't get it. It's just the OEM and OEM-authorized dealer advertising sales for a new aircraft; just like Ford/Chevy/Dodge/Honda/Toyota/whoever-else-you-want does in the car world.

Tecnam keeps producing the P2012 as they have orders to fill (including from other customers than Cape Air, like Zil Air in Seychelles - 3 ordered, 1 delivered S7-ADM).
Once Cape Air's P2012 Operations are finally approved by the FAA, I wouldn't be surprised if they get "flooded" by new frames.
 
IADCA
Posts: 2056
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

Re: Status of Tecnam P2012 Traveller?

Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:21 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Clearly, no one here has dealt with the FAA to get an approval for OpsSpecs. It’s quite normal to wait up to 4-6 months for an LOA to operate a new bizjet that’s certified and delivered to the customer. Anyone who thinks the FAA works in haste is clueless. New Global took us six months and a call to Washington to get RNP approval for NAT HLA.


I have, and that's why I find this thread quite amusing. Even major overseas carriers sometimes have fairly long delays in getting new fleet types onto their OpSpecs, especially when there's no US operator of the type. Not usually that long, but brand new fleet type for a small carrier is going to be a long road.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 4639
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Status of Tecnam P2012 Traveller?

Tue Feb 11, 2020 3:06 pm

Our FSDO’s answer to RNP4 request was, “you’ll just fly over the NATS, no rush on our part”.
 
highflier92660
Posts: 711
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:16 am

Re: TECNAM P2012 TRAVELLER PROBLEMS

Tue Feb 11, 2020 4:01 pm

eeightning wrote:
Ok, I’ll speculate. Both Lycoming and Continental have tried to get “fadec” engines into service but they’re always “recalled” (using car terms now). When I saw the specs on ieo-580, I was surprised that they would try to go directly to full fadec. The engine needs fadec to achieve it’s performance numbers at only 2500rpm, and more importantly to achieve reliable durability when operated by pilots who don’t have the experience or bandwith to operate these engines the way full time f/e’s nursed the dc-6 engines around. These things are festooned with sensors. Bet the come back from every other flight with sensor or ecm driven write-up.

Thats the speculation from a recip lover with 20 years dom experience pt 135 piston. It would be great to hear from someone 1st or 2nd hand at Cape.



I enjoy this post immensely. The human brain is measured by bandwidth. And I'm juxtaposing a 1950s Douglas DC-6 flight engineer playing Rachmaninoff with four recalcitrant R-2800 engines against today's low-time Theodore Throttle plying a couple of KISS Lycoming TEO-540 engines equipped with FADEC. How times have changed.
 
PBADC3
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 7:34 pm

Re: Status of Tecnam P2012 Traveller?

Tue Feb 11, 2020 4:16 pm

I'm not in the midst of the P2012 certification process at 9K, but I have been directly involved in a similar certification initiative at another regional airline. In our case it was the first U.S. service of the 328JET. The FRJ to the P12 isn't a direct corollary because the 328JET was a "conversion" from the turboprop 328, so the process isn't exactly the same, but there are enough similarties.

This is complicated. More complicated than an existing aircraft operating in the U.S. being added to an existing operators OpsSpecs. For example, if 9K were to have added the Pilatus to their fleet (this is an example only), that certification process would probably be half of the time.

Why?

In the case of a truly new aircraft to the U.S., which the P2012 is, the first step is for it to get it's U.S. certification. The next step is to get the FAA and related team fully trained and then qualified on the airplane. This can be done a number of different ways. In our case, we did some of it in Germany (maintenance mostly), did some flight training in Hoopdorf (simulators) and dispatch and other classroom training in the U.S. In our case this was done somewhat simultaneous to us writing our procedures. At the end of the day you need qualified and expert P2012 FAA folks to do all the inspections and tests that you need to do in order to get the airplane on the operators certificate.

During this process, especially (emphasis added) for a new type there will be things discovered and learned. This could be a reliability issue, or a process issue. Depending on the size of the discovered discrepancy it can be fixed on the fly, or, it could slow or stop progress will a fix is designed and implemented. This takes time. The other crucial variable here is the availability of the various FAA principals. In the case of a 135 operator like 9K and many other regionals of similar or smaller size, they do not have a CMO team that is 100% dedicated to them. In other words their PMI (Principal Maintenance Inspector) may have five operators they are responsible for which could be 9K, perhaps another 135 scheduled operator and maybe two or three part 91 operators. Getting time from your FAA team can be another hurdle that can be difficult to overcome depending on their workload.

Once that team training is complete and in place, then the airline can turn it's attention to the actual proving and validation process. Before getting there, however, they need to train their initial cadre of pilots (and F/A's if applicable), station staff, dispatch team, maintenace, on-call maintenance, fuelers, ARFF services, third party ground handlers, etc. This is all based on a complete rewrite of the airline manuals which will include submissions for approval by the FAA along the way which may, or may not, be given depending on what the process in question is. The flying that the four airplanes that 9K have in their fleet right now seem to be doing all look like check-rides as they are all following a fairly similar pattern. There was also a very long distance flight 6-8 weeks ago (maybe more) that took an airplane to ABQ and back. That would be to demonstrate long range, off-network charter flying. IIRC there was one "diversion" in that line of flight, a standard proving run event in which the FAA inspectors on board who are playing the role of customer "change their mind" enroute on what airport they want to go to. This demonstrates and tests the airlines ability to, "on the fly" reroute an aircraft that is off network to an airport that meets all the regulatory requirements, secure proper handlers and fueling, etc.

My memory is fuzzy on this part, but I seem to recall that a new aircraft addition to the OpsSpecs like this may require up to 120 hours of proving runs. In our case we flew just under 80 hours. This is not necessarily a required 120 hours, but is a "plan for" number. It also doesn't have to be contiguous, although the FAA will want to do as much as they can together to be time efficient, but there is no requirement to do so. The FAA can also suspend proving runs. This happened to us not only at our initial certification with a different fleet type, but also with the 328JET. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but is indicative that the FAA is finding things that they are not happy with. This should not be read to mean that the airline is unsafe or the operation is unsafe. Think about it a little bit like the game of football. There are rules. You can't grab a facemask. If you do, it's a penalty. It's somewhat the same thing. Remember, everyone is leaning a new airplane, new operational procedures, new processes, and in an airline environment that's not as easy as it sounds, or if it's a small part 91 corporate environment.

This is new to Cape Air. This whole thing. The airplane, the certification process, the manufacturer. Distance isn't helping them with the manufacturer being in Italy. And their FSDO doesn't likely have particularly deep experience here. The BOS FSDO who likely (unless someone knows where their CHDO is if it isn't BOS) I don't think holds many scheduled service airline certificates, if any. And if they do, none of them have added a brand new airplane to the U.S. to the certificate at hand. Cape Air hasn't done this before, either. Sure they added the ATR, but that's a proven airplane, longtime in service in the U.S. with well established maintenance, ground handling, inflight, dispatch and FCOM procedures that Cape Air pulled to get through proving as well as a range of FAA personnel expert in the ATR. Similar situation with the Islander. So I'm not surprised this is moving slowly, especially in the environment that the FAA finds themselves in with the MAX issue, questions surrounding their oversight of SWA and who knows what dynamics exist between the FAA and Cape Air management.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 4639
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Status of Tecnam P2012 Traveller?

Tue Feb 11, 2020 4:23 pm

Yes, the MAX story has added a layer bureaucratic conservatism-no one wants to be the next FAA employee to sign off on a potential headline disaster.
 
CanadianNorth
Posts: 3237
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:41 am

Re: Status of Tecnam P2012 Traveller?

Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:18 pm

crjflyboy wrote:
The ATR still suffers from icing issues.


Sorry to go off topic, but source? There are several operators in northern Canada who have been flying ATRs in icing conditions for years now and they're fine. There was issues with ice in the earlier days of ATR yes but they came out with a series of modifications to the airplane to fix that and they seem to be fine now.

Anyways, back to the P2012s...
HS-748, like a 747 but better!
 
crjflyboy
Topic Author
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: Status of Tecnam P2012 Traveller?

Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:47 pm

PBADC3 wrote:
I'm not in the midst of the P2012 certification process at 9K, but I have been directly involved in a similar certification initiative at another regional airline. In our case it was the first U.S. service of the 328JET. The FRJ to the P12 isn't a direct corollary because the 328JET was a "conversion" from the turboprop 328, so the process isn't exactly the same, but there are enough similarties.

This is complicated. More complicated than an existing aircraft operating in the U.S. being added to an existing operators OpsSpecs. For example, if 9K were to have added the Pilatus to their fleet (this is an example only), that certification process would probably be half of the time.

Why?

In the case of a truly new aircraft to the U.S., which the P2012 is, the first step is for it to get it's U.S. certification. The next step is to get the FAA and related team fully trained and then qualified on the airplane. This can be done a number of different ways. In our case, we did some of it in Germany (maintenance mostly), did some flight training in Hoopdorf (simulators) and dispatch and other classroom training in the U.S. In our case this was done somewhat simultaneous to us writing our procedures. At the end of the day you need qualified and expert P2012 FAA folks to do all the inspections and tests that you need to do in order to get the airplane on the operators certificate.

During this process, especially (emphasis added) for a new type there will be things discovered and learned. This could be a reliability issue, or a process issue. Depending on the size of the discovered discrepancy it can be fixed on the fly, or, it could slow or stop progress will a fix is designed and implemented. This takes time. The other crucial variable here is the availability of the various FAA principals. In the case of a 135 operator like 9K and many other regionals of similar or smaller size, they do not have a CMO team that is 100% dedicated to them. In other words their PMI (Principal Maintenance Inspector) may have five operators they are responsible for which could be 9K, perhaps another 135 scheduled operator and maybe two or three part 91 operators. Getting time from your FAA team can be another hurdle that can be difficult to overcome depending on their workload.

Once that team training is complete and in place, then the airline can turn it's attention to the actual proving and validation process. Before getting there, however, they need to train their initial cadre of pilots (and F/A's if applicable), station staff, dispatch team, maintenace, on-call maintenance, fuelers, ARFF services, third party ground handlers, etc. This is all based on a complete rewrite of the airline manuals which will include submissions for approval by the FAA along the way which may, or may not, be given depending on what the process in question is. The flying that the four airplanes that 9K have in their fleet right now seem to be doing all look like check-rides as they are all following a fairly similar pattern. There was also a very long distance flight 6-8 weeks ago (maybe more) that took an airplane to ABQ and back. That would be to demonstrate long range, off-network charter flying. IIRC there was one "diversion" in that line of flight, a standard proving run event in which the FAA inspectors on board who are playing the role of customer "change their mind" enroute on what airport they want to go to. This demonstrates and tests the airlines ability to, "on the fly" reroute an aircraft that is off network to an airport that meets all the regulatory requirements, secure proper handlers and fueling, etc.

My memory is fuzzy on this part, but I seem to recall that a new aircraft addition to the OpsSpecs like this may require up to 120 hours of proving runs. In our case we flew just under 80 hours. This is not necessarily a required 120 hours, but is a "plan for" number. It also doesn't have to be contiguous, although the FAA will want to do as much as they can together to be time efficient, but there is no requirement to do so. The FAA can also suspend proving runs. This happened to us not only at our initial certification with a different fleet type, but also with the 328JET. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but is indicative that the FAA is finding things that they are not happy with. This should not be read to mean that the airline is unsafe or the operation is unsafe. Think about it a little bit like the game of football. There are rules. You can't grab a facemask. If you do, it's a penalty. It's somewhat the same thing. Remember, everyone is leaning a new airplane, new operational procedures, new processes, and in an airline environment that's not as easy as it sounds, or if it's a small part 91 corporate environment.

This is new to Cape Air. This whole thing. The airplane, the certification process, the manufacturer. Distance isn't helping them with the manufacturer being in Italy. And their FSDO doesn't likely have particularly deep experience here. The BOS FSDO who likely (unless someone knows where their CHDO is if it isn't BOS) I don't think holds many scheduled service airline certificates, if any. And if they do, none of them have added a brand new airplane to the U.S. to the certificate at hand. Cape Air hasn't done this before, either. Sure they added the ATR, but that's a proven airplane, longtime in service in the U.S. with well established maintenance, ground handling, inflight, dispatch and FCOM procedures that Cape Air pulled to get through proving as well as a range of FAA personnel expert in the ATR. Similar situation with the Islander. So I'm not surprised this is moving slowly, especially in the environment that the FAA finds themselves in with the MAX issue, questions surrounding their oversight of SWA and who knows what dynamics exist between the FAA and Cape Air management.


excellent insight of the complexities ...
 
crjflyboy
Topic Author
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: Status of Tecnam P2012 Traveller?

Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:24 pm

CanadianNorth wrote:
crjflyboy wrote:
The ATR still suffers from icing issues.


Sorry to go off topic, but source? There are several operators in northern Canada who have been flying ATRs in icing conditions for years now and they're fine. There was issues with ice in the earlier days of ATR yes but they came out with a series of modifications to the airplane to fix that and they seem to be fine now.

Anyways, back to the P2012s...


Here ... luckily the crews in most of these incidents had enough altitude to recover ... unlike Roselawn

https://www.flightglobal.com/flawed-bid ... 74.article

http://aerossurance.com/safety-manageme ... m-no-2016/

https://news.aviation-safety.net/2013/0 ... -take-off/

https://aviation-safety.net/database/re ... 20101104-0
 
CanadianNorth
Posts: 3237
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:41 am

Re: Status of Tecnam P2012 Traveller?

Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:08 am

Thanks. Though in fairness to the ATR, first article "...instead of following the correct checklist procedures", second article fair enough, third article "...may have caused the de-icing personnel to not be sufficiently attentive", and fourth article "This, in conjunction with errors by the crew in managing the situation".

I'll rephrase my earlier post, the ATRs seem to do fine if you have the mods that ATR came out with after the initial icing problems, and if the operators and crews are following the recommended instructions.

Anyways, thanks and back to P2012s...
HS-748, like a 747 but better!
 
N6168E
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 5:57 am

Re: Status of Tecnam P2012 Traveller?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 4:15 pm

More Action on the Tecnam's. N288CA and N411CA have been transferred from Tecnam USA to Cape Air. They are still in Italy. N566CA and N699CA made their first flights, N699CA on 11Feb and N566CA on 12Nov.
Most of the flights are filed with then N number, but I have seen some with a Cape Air # (N244CA is flying now as 9K 603), and others have a "T" in their call sign, such as N133CA was filed on Monday as (9k T240). I don't know how Cape Air works it, but I would tend to believe that the "T" flights are training flights.

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