No More?

[donv]

I heard a pretty solid rumor that Commanders are done for USFS firefighting purposes?

Seems like that will have a pretty big impact on the Commander market and fleet?

[appleseed]

Now that is a significant rumor.

USFS aviation leadership has never been known for making sensible plans. The flight and ground visibility (plus economy, plus S/E hot high performance, +,+,+) of the Commanders makes them obviously superior to anything else except maybe the OV-10s. But at some point, if you can afford it, you want to put a limit on the age of the equipment you are operating.

Folks that aren't directly involved in maintaining and operating complex equipment often assume that reliability is related to age of equipment. It is actually the parts supply chain and the quality of technical support. And these generally track with the size of the fleet and the annual hours that the fleet is flying.

In the long run, the question may be, did Ontic lose the USFS, or did loss of USFS deal a death blow to Ontic's commander division.

I hope your rumor dies out, or at least doesn't come to pass for another 10 years Donv.

[donv]

The more specific part of the rumor is that the USFS is requiring a tail inspection and rework which is basically impossible to comply with... a couple of operators are trying to do so, but don't have the final instructions yet, and it will be a very lengthy and expensive process.

The good news is that it only applies to USFS operations, so the rest of us don't have to worry about it.

[donv]

Hopefully Bruce will be along to tell us that it isn't true.

[Bruce Byerly]

Appleseed, though I much prefer real names, has pointed out some popular questions.

There are many loyal Commander enthusiasts out there and I am among them.  I flew a Shrike 4 legs today for business and know it’s a fantastic plane.  While my dad told me not to love anything that can’t love back, Commanders have always done WAY more than I ever asked of them. Can’t say that about most planes and, I think like Don,  I have more  than my share of experience through good luck and determination.

I just wish the type certificate holder would be faster to recognize certain realities and priorities.

[BR317]

Does anyone have any updates on aerial fire fighting 690’s that are required to be inspected pursuant to Service Bulletin 244?  It’s my understanding that after inspecting multiple wing sections and all of their bolt holes from stations 39 to 39, that no cracks have been detected through either visual or eddy current inspections, by the NDT technicians.  Currently the inspection only applies to straight 690 and the 690A/B’s that don’t have the CK144 factory spar replacement kit.  Hopefully, this positive data will separate the Twin Commander from other aircraft that rely on bolt on wing designs that have experienced separations in the past.  The full length spar design of the 690’s, especially those with the CK144 kit is proven, durable, and safe, and it is a shame that these aircraft have been put in the same grouping as the bolt on wing aircraft, that have been experiencing wing cracking issues for decades, and whose wing inspections are mandatory and prudent.

I’m familiar with several aircraft that have had the tail inspection portion of SB244 performed with no cracking found.  Again great news, the Ontic  Representative that presented at Hancock Enterprise’s Twin Commander Fly In, in the Fall of 2023 said TC was working on a solution similar to what is incorporated into the 1000B for those aerial fire fighting aircraft that may be affected.  As has been posted here in the past, the speculation is that any cracking in the tail arises from poor maintenance relating to SB 218.  Most TC’s have been maintained by TC Service Centers or quality shops, and hopefully there should be very few aircraft that fall into this category.

It would be appreciated, if anyone with information and/or insights into the data being collected through the SB 244 inspection program, could share this information, and their thoughts with the group.  Unfortunately, I believe TC’s have unfairly been lumped in with weaker bolt on wing designs and the only way to again separate ourselves, is to present certified NDT data to prove TC’s carry through spar is as a safe, durable, and proven as it has ever been, and to lump it in with the bolt on wings is not fair or correct.

[donv]

I certainly believe that Commanders which have been properly inspected and maintained are completely safe. Whether the Forest Service agrees is the question, and I don't know the answer to that.