Talk:CASA C-212 Aviocar/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about CASA C-212 Aviocar. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Untitled
The undercarriage of the C-212 is fixed, I know this first hand and in any case you can check it out at:
I have changed the relevant line in the article.
Numbers
Having numbers operated especially by different militaries wouldnt hurt.
Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.248.159.240 (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Service Ceiling
The article is a little confusing to me in the area of service ceiling. The article states the service ceiling is 10,000 feet, then later 26,000 feet, and indicates a crash at 14,000 feet. How are these numbers explained? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.88.143.1 (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- The 10,000 foot number is not the service ceiling, but a regulatory limitation, as the sentence says: "Since the C-212 does not have a pressurized fuselage, it is limited to relatively low-flight-level airline usage (below 10,000 ft (3,000 m) MSL). It is thus ideal for short legs and regional airline service" - Ahunt (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Accident
I found:
WhisperToMe (talk) 11:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a developing story. But the crashed airplane is a CASA 212:
Ntroncos (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Safety record?
In the article I see:
- "A total of 478 C-212s of all variants had been delivered through the end of 2008 by EADS-CASA."
and
- "As of September 2011, CASA C-212s have been involved in 71 hull-loss incidents with a total of 558 fatalities"
Is this notable? 1 out of 7 planes experiencing a "hull-loss incident" seems like a remarkably high number, but I don't know that its statistically significant. --Raduga (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- The aircraft does have a high hull-loss rate, but it most likely reflects the way it is employed, in high risk operations, rather than any design deficiency with the aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 10:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- The high accident rate may also be related to quality control issues during Indonesian assembly. The FAA initially refused to certify the Indonesian (Nurtano) 212 because of faulty records and poor quality control. This was eventually largely overcome by using knock-down-kits from certifiable sources, but there are certainly some marginal 212s remaining in Indonesia! Santamoly (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- I haven't seen any refs that support that any proportion of the accidents have been caused by quality-control problems as opposed to losses due to operational accidents. - Ahunt (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- If you're not experienced in technical matters you may not have noticed over 30 years of quality-control warnings issued by the FAA with respect to this aircraft. The following are some of the 212's quality-control issues which have been brought to the FAA's attention:
- 2013-24-09 1/21/2014 Engine Controls 2009-20-10 11/17/2009 Auto Flight 2009-12-04 7/16/2009 Navigation 2009-02-01 3/9/2009 Center wing attachment fittings 2008-06-13 4/17/2008 Centre wing lower skin 2006-15-12 8/29/2006 Protective liner between the passengers and the cargo. 2006-15-11 8/29/2006 Protective liner between the passengers and the cargo. 2005-18-20 10/14/2005 "FASTprop" propeller de-icers 2004-07-17 5/11/2004 Nose landing gear (NLG) 99-19-15 12/27/1999 AFM - Limitations Section - Ice Protection Systems 99-04-02 3/17/1999 Inspect Fuel Pump Cover Plates For Spark Marks 98-10-08 6/17/1998 Lower Shaft & Support Structure Of Rudder 98-22-04 11/27/1998 Power Quadrant Cover 98-18-21 10/20/1998 Corrosion Inspection 98-12-28 7/15/1998 Inspect False Spar Of Wing For Cracking 98-06-02 4/15/1998 Inspect Spherical Bearings Of Aileron Control Rod 97-21-14 11/24/1997 Inspect Restrictor Pistons 97-03-13 3/14/1997 Rudder Pedal Setting Mechanisms 96-09-22 6/11/1996 AFM - Icing 96-07-14 5/15/1996 Reduced Structural Integrity 92-13-51 7/31/1992 Backup Blocking Device 91-03-10 3/11/1991 Propeller Speed & Pitch Control System 89-23-16 12/12/1989 Power Reserve System 89-22-09 11/20/1989 Passenger Door Evacuation 89-19-05 10/14/1989 Rear Passenger Seats 89-21-08 10/5/1989 Trim Control System 89-02-08 R1 9/5/1989 Wing Flap Control System 89-05-01 4/3/1989 Wing Flap Control System 88-09-02 6/1/1988 Fuel Shut-Off Valves 87-16-04 8/31/1987 Stall Warning System 87-10-08 6/19/1987 Crew Door Handle Cover 87-05-07 3/25/1987 Attendant's Seat 87-05-06 3/25/1987 Propeller Feathering Control 87-04-10 3/9/1987 Smoke Detector System 87-04-02 3/2/1987 Nose Landing Gear 87-03-04 2/19/1987 Trim Control Markings & Placards 86-19-05 10/2/1986 Electrical System 84-12-03 7/23/1984 Structural Flight Controls and Fuel System 84-02-03 2/27/1984 Exit Doors Modification 83-02-06 2/7/1983 Fuel Filter System
- Any of the above defects, usually discovered after a series of accidents, will have an effect on the airplane's airworthiness. Some major structural defects have been hi-lighted. Just as an aside, it's also useful to note that the 212 is not permitted to carry passengers in Canada, amongst other places, because of its various design and quality-control issues. It's understandable that you, as an uninformed lay-person, may be unaware of these quality-control issues, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the problems don't exist.Santamoly (talk) 07:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm a retired military test pilot, so hardly an "uninformed lay-person", so you can cease the personal attacks and insults. You haven't addressed the item I brought up. ADs and notices about quality control issues don't necessarily directly relate to individual accidents. ADs are often issued due to findings from inspections, including visual and NDT, and not necessarily accidents. Most large transport aircraft have long lists of ADs and that doesn't mean they crash a lot or are not airworthy. For instance I looked up ADs for the B-737-200 series and there are 357 of them. Does that mean they were poorly designed and constructed? If the quality issues were causing C-212 accidents then one or more airworthiness authorities would have grounded the aircraft. So where is the proof that any of these AD issues caused accidents? We need actual refs, not speculation, to add any of this to the article. The Transport Canada TCDS A-147 restricts all C-212s to "no passengers", regardless of manufacturer, including CASA-built ones, although only three models are approved and two of those for single serial numbers. There is no indication in the Canadian TCDS that this is due to design or quality control issues in Indonesia or in Spain. - Ahunt (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- My apologies. I had just assumed that since you appear to be unfamiliar with certification and airworthiness in general, that you were an "uninformed lay-person". But then, as a "military test pilot", you were likely flying uncertified military iron, so my assumption was not entirely off-base. Regardless, I do apologize. Getting back to the discussion, the 212 is not approved for carrying passengers because it's inherently dangerous for one reason or another. The accident referred to contained, inter alia, the following conclusions: "The speeder spring of the right propeller governor pilot valve was incorrectly installed during assembly of the component. Because of the incorrect installation, the speeder spring probably shifted when the aircraft was on late final approach, and this shift resulted in large thrust fluctuations of the right engine. As a result of the right engine thrust fluctuations, the crew probably lost control of the aircraft." Sounds like a quality-control and/or design issue to me. Only two pilots died. That accident showed very clearly why passengers are prohibited on the 212 in some countries. So you are correct in observing that the 212 would be grounded by authorities. In fact, the 212 is grounded in Canada except for restricted, no pax, flight ops. Not sure where you're going with the the B737 comparison. There's been about 4500 fatalities in 737s so far, including the 100 souls lost in last week's 737-200 crash. Although it's a good point you raise, I'm not sure if the B737-100/200 is a good plane for comparison. That's a lot of fatalities. Santamoly (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- I was a civil test pilot, too, and served seven years on the Transport Canada CARAC committee responsible for airworthiness regs in Canada (CARs Part V) and even chaired a Transport Canada Part V working group, the first time a non-TC staff member ever did that. I've done lots of airworthiness work, but that isn't really all that relevant to the question at hand, which is about finding written refs, versus undocumented speculation. I don't see any information saying the 212 does not meet any airworthiness standards in Canada or elsewhere, for cargo aircraft, in fact it has a type certificate in Canada saying it does comply. It is not grounded, it is permitted to fly here. We are very sticky here about unsafe aircraft and just don't certify designs if they don't meet the standards, or if they have production quality control issues. The lack of 212 passenger certification in Canada could be due to something as simple as the cargo aircraft-style seat designs not meeting the CAR STD 525 crashworthiness "g" standards. The example accident you mention above is a maintenance issue; the maintainers put it back together wrong. I once had an engine out (ironically on a Bell 212 on a test flight, not a C-212) due to the same thing, in this case an AFCU assembly error by maint folks. The only "design flaw" is that the maintenance is not "foolproof", but few aircraft are. It is not an airworthiness requirement to be so, which is why maint people go to school. Regardless, unless we have a ref that states that the aircraft has design issues or manufacturing quality control issues, there is nothing we can add to the article on this subject. - Ahunt (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- I must commend your spirited (possibly proprietary?) defense of the C-212 but, honestly, the list of defects of one kind or another with the 212 just goes on and on. Without making an endless list of short-comings, we might just focus on the inherent design defects, and the initial quality defects of the Nurtano builds. I observe, for example, that the 212 was limited to 10 degrees of flap because of the concern of the regulators that the 212 would become unstable as a result of asymetric thrust. Indeed, as the fatal accident showed, the airplane did become unstable as a result of the thrust problems from the right engine due to the faulty engine assembly. Any properly-designed twin should be able to handle thrust problems like this. There is no doubt that the Casa 212, irrespective of origin, was badly designed and many were badly assembled. The result is a high fatal accident rate, and the inevitable resulting flight restrictions in civil operations. Raduga above had a valid point. Santamoly (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hardly a spirited defence of the C-212. In fact I have never even seen one in real life close up, let alone flown one or have any connection to the design or the company. My whole assertion here is that if we are going to add criticisms of the design we need proper refs to cite. Taking a fistful of ADs and drawing conclusions about the overall design or manufacture quality would be at very best WP:SYNTHESIS or at worst WP:OR. You said "There is no doubt that the Casa 212, irrespective of origin, was badly designed and many were badly assembled", that is your opinion, where are the refs to back it up? I am all for adding criticism, if you can cite the refs. I still haven't seen any yet. - Ahunt (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- I must commend your spirited (possibly proprietary?) defense of the C-212 but, honestly, the list of defects of one kind or another with the 212 just goes on and on. Without making an endless list of short-comings, we might just focus on the inherent design defects, and the initial quality defects of the Nurtano builds. I observe, for example, that the 212 was limited to 10 degrees of flap because of the concern of the regulators that the 212 would become unstable as a result of asymetric thrust. Indeed, as the fatal accident showed, the airplane did become unstable as a result of the thrust problems from the right engine due to the faulty engine assembly. Any properly-designed twin should be able to handle thrust problems like this. There is no doubt that the Casa 212, irrespective of origin, was badly designed and many were badly assembled. The result is a high fatal accident rate, and the inevitable resulting flight restrictions in civil operations. Raduga above had a valid point. Santamoly (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- I was a civil test pilot, too, and served seven years on the Transport Canada CARAC committee responsible for airworthiness regs in Canada (CARs Part V) and even chaired a Transport Canada Part V working group, the first time a non-TC staff member ever did that. I've done lots of airworthiness work, but that isn't really all that relevant to the question at hand, which is about finding written refs, versus undocumented speculation. I don't see any information saying the 212 does not meet any airworthiness standards in Canada or elsewhere, for cargo aircraft, in fact it has a type certificate in Canada saying it does comply. It is not grounded, it is permitted to fly here. We are very sticky here about unsafe aircraft and just don't certify designs if they don't meet the standards, or if they have production quality control issues. The lack of 212 passenger certification in Canada could be due to something as simple as the cargo aircraft-style seat designs not meeting the CAR STD 525 crashworthiness "g" standards. The example accident you mention above is a maintenance issue; the maintainers put it back together wrong. I once had an engine out (ironically on a Bell 212 on a test flight, not a C-212) due to the same thing, in this case an AFCU assembly error by maint folks. The only "design flaw" is that the maintenance is not "foolproof", but few aircraft are. It is not an airworthiness requirement to be so, which is why maint people go to school. Regardless, unless we have a ref that states that the aircraft has design issues or manufacturing quality control issues, there is nothing we can add to the article on this subject. - Ahunt (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- My apologies. I had just assumed that since you appear to be unfamiliar with certification and airworthiness in general, that you were an "uninformed lay-person". But then, as a "military test pilot", you were likely flying uncertified military iron, so my assumption was not entirely off-base. Regardless, I do apologize. Getting back to the discussion, the 212 is not approved for carrying passengers because it's inherently dangerous for one reason or another. The accident referred to contained, inter alia, the following conclusions: "The speeder spring of the right propeller governor pilot valve was incorrectly installed during assembly of the component. Because of the incorrect installation, the speeder spring probably shifted when the aircraft was on late final approach, and this shift resulted in large thrust fluctuations of the right engine. As a result of the right engine thrust fluctuations, the crew probably lost control of the aircraft." Sounds like a quality-control and/or design issue to me. Only two pilots died. That accident showed very clearly why passengers are prohibited on the 212 in some countries. So you are correct in observing that the 212 would be grounded by authorities. In fact, the 212 is grounded in Canada except for restricted, no pax, flight ops. Not sure where you're going with the the B737 comparison. There's been about 4500 fatalities in 737s so far, including the 100 souls lost in last week's 737-200 crash. Although it's a good point you raise, I'm not sure if the B737-100/200 is a good plane for comparison. That's a lot of fatalities. Santamoly (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm a retired military test pilot, so hardly an "uninformed lay-person", so you can cease the personal attacks and insults. You haven't addressed the item I brought up. ADs and notices about quality control issues don't necessarily directly relate to individual accidents. ADs are often issued due to findings from inspections, including visual and NDT, and not necessarily accidents. Most large transport aircraft have long lists of ADs and that doesn't mean they crash a lot or are not airworthy. For instance I looked up ADs for the B-737-200 series and there are 357 of them. Does that mean they were poorly designed and constructed? If the quality issues were causing C-212 accidents then one or more airworthiness authorities would have grounded the aircraft. So where is the proof that any of these AD issues caused accidents? We need actual refs, not speculation, to add any of this to the article. The Transport Canada TCDS A-147 restricts all C-212s to "no passengers", regardless of manufacturer, including CASA-built ones, although only three models are approved and two of those for single serial numbers. There is no indication in the Canadian TCDS that this is due to design or quality control issues in Indonesia or in Spain. - Ahunt (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
- http://www.airbusmilitary.com/Tactical/TactC212.aspx
- Triggered by
\bairbusmilitary\.com\bon the local blacklist
- Triggered by
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Another accident report
From the Canadian authorities:
- http://web.archive.org/web/20050324220904/http://www.avsaf.org/reports/CANADA/1988.08.02_GeaterrexLtd_CasaC212.pdf - GeoTerrex Limited, Casa 212 (C-GILU), 2 August 1988, at Reykjavik - http://www.webcitation.org/6aBwn2qe9
WhisperToMe (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
