The International Cessna^® 170 Association

hilltop170 wrote:Weigh it.

Awww, Richard! I never doubted that YOU knew the answer! I was hoping to elicit thought from others!

YEs, that's CORRECT! WEIGH IT! A pressure-gauge on a Halon Ext. is NOT a valid method of determining whether the unit is properly serviced because the extinguishant is a LIQUID and converts to gas to propel itself out of the extinguisher. Just like a rattle-can of paint... it maintains pressure until the product is completely expelled....so even tho' no product is available for the task, the unit will still display pressure. It MUST BE WEIGHED....and should be within 90% of it's data-plate weight.

gahorn wrote:Would the FSDO's of the lower-48 have tolerated carrying it as an external load? (such as the FSDO's in AK would have considered prudent?)

NOT a criticism as this might first appear... but a suggestion that FAA play by the same rules everywhere for everyone... and a question as to how we might implement that change.

You can read the policy and see...

futr_alaskaflyer wrote:....You can read the policy and see...

external loads book.pdf

Here's some good advice:

When attaching a rifle scabbard to the wing struts, it is a good idea to ensure that the rifle is not going to come out by the scabbard; this could be very embarrassing, expensive, and deadly to people on the ground.

Especially the "embarrassing" part!

The answer therefore is : No, b ecause:
1- The aircraft must be re-licensed in the Restricted Category
2- The pilot must be approved for external loads (experience requirements)
3- The entire policy applies only to Alaskan operations.

The FAA permitted this special use in the state of Alaska because there was a need for using airplanes to carry things that could not fit in the cabins. Pilots up there applied for it and proved it could be accomplished safely. In the lower 48 we have helicopters and the external load rule (Part 133) that seems to meet our needs when we have to carry something big by air. However, an airplane operator could apply for the same special use as was done in the state of Alaska and use the Alaska operating limitations as a justification for doing the same thing in another state. If it could be done with the same level of safety, it is possible the FAA might approve it. When I flew Twin Otters in the 70s and 80s, a casino operator in Reno who we sold parts to used a DHC-6 to haul construction materials out to his ranch in the middle of Nevada somewhere and I am pretty sure he had permission to hang stuff outside the cabin.

This is not a 170 story either but worth watching.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVwlodvW ... ture=email

johneeb wrote:This is not a 170 story either but worth watching.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVwlodvW ... ture=email

Never quite got it on the step, did they?

According to that wind-sock he had a right-crosswind and it appears he never compensated for that. Plus he never got it up on the step to accelerate. It appears he realized he was heading for the left-shore (pilot's view) and pulled it off early and without directional control. Lots of water-way still ahead by the looks of things, if he'd simply corrected for the light wind.

The story goes that everyone on board was unhurt including two dogs. (This is likely also due to the loss of directional-control.... as the left wing contacted the fence it turned the fuselage around to the left and the wreckage slid to a stop in "reverse"...which means everyone was pressed BACK into their seats instead of being slung forward. Good thing.

Ironically, the bldg they crash next to is said to be the AK Transportation Dept.