Talk:De Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter/Archive 1

Comments
Recently there have been 3 reverts over the inclusion of this image: Image:DWTwinOtter.jpg. I believe that it should be included as it is freely licenced and applicable and fits the layout. -Lommer | talk 19:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Bah, I feel stupid now - I just realized that that isn't a Twin Otter in the picture! -Lommer | talk 19:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I made a few edits to the article, mostly to correct numerical errors. There are 584 Twin Otters flying as of August 2007. Someone had listed about 350, this might be correct as the quantity in airline service, but if you include the entire fleet (skydive, privately owned, government, etc.) there are 584. The first engine fitted was a PT6A-20, this was a 550 HP engine. The Series 300 uses the -27 engine, this is a 680 HP engine but it is flat rated (limited) to 620 HP when installed on the Twin Otter, primarily to keep the Vmc down to an acceptable level. The aircraft is legally limited to 19 passengers (anything more than 19 requires a flight attendant be on board in most jurisdictions) - therefore, if skydiving clubs are lifting more than this, it would be wise for them to not brag about it here on Wikipedia. The first pre-production prototype of the Series 400 aircraft is now being being built at Viking Air in Sidney, BC and is expected to fly in the late spring of 2008. FYI I am the engineering test pilot for the Series 400 - I work for Viking.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-6_Twin_Otter/Comments" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PanEuropean (talk • contribs).

Accidents and incidents
Over the years, there have been lots of Twin Otter crashes and hijackings. Currently, there are 276 incidents recorded in the Aviation Safety Network database for the Twin Otter and, obviously, it would be impractical to list them all on this Wikipedia page.

Should this section be re-labeled "Notable accidents and incidents" (similar to how it's done on the Dash 8 page) and only particularly noteworthy incidents listed? If so, what guidelines should be used in deciding which incidents are worth noting? 12.214.19.55 (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Both the airport and airlines projects have a definition for inclusion which is -

Accidents or incidents should only be included if
 * The event was fatal to either aircraft occupants or persons on the ground;
 * The event involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport;
 * The event resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry.

Although this has not been adopted by the aircraft project it is probably a good guideline for entries. MilborneOne (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, by those standards, I will be removing the entry I made about the first known hijacking of a Twin Otter (since the hijackers got away cleanly and there was no hull loss or fatalities).


 * I will point out, however, that even with those criteria, the "Accidents and incidents" section could grow pretty large for a plane like the Twin Otter. The Aviation Safety Network database lists 243 hull losses and (if I counted correctly) 159 fatal accidents since 1967.

12.214.19.55 (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point but the guideline is to limit non-notable incidents being added, I would suggest that if it was a hull-loss but didnt meet the other criteria then it shouldnt be added. Having an inclusion guideline doesnt allways follow that everything that qualifies should be added, I would like to think a level of common sense still applies. But it does give weight from consensus for excluding the more simple non-fatal and non-notable accidents and incidents from being added. MilborneOne (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Then add Golden West Airlines Flight 261 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:5E7C:3C09:C927:B83A:59D4:BD4C (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If you think it is notable then you could add it yourself, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

price and cost
where can i find more information about the prices and costs of twin otter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.209.65.93 (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

When do we rename the article?
The 400-series is now in production, and De Havilland/Bombardier aren't involved. But it's not a different plane; it's the same plane just as a newer series. Sooooo... when do we rename it to "Viking DHC-6 Twin Otter" (or whatever)? Greg Salter (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The general practice has been to use the manufacturer which had the longest production run, or which is most well-known as the producer. So plan on about 2045 for the article's name change. :) THe Dash 8 was only recently moved from De Havilland Canada to Bombardier, tho the latter has been producing it for well over 10 years. Another option is that Viking's variants start differing a lot from the DHC's, or when the article's coverage on the Viking starts to overshadow the DHCs, then we put the Viking variants on a new page. For now, tho, it's probably best to leave page as is. We should set up redirects at the most likely names to be searched, such as Viking DHC-6 Twin Otter, Viking DHC-6, and Viking Twin Otter. - BillCJ (talk) 01:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello BillCJ: I agree with you, it makes sense to leave the main article under the title 'de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter'.  Even though the type certificate for the aircraft is now owned by Viking Air, and the aircraft is now back in production at Viking Air, all but one of the changes between de Havilland production (which ended in 1988) and Viking production (which began in 2008) are all considered 'minor' by Transport Canada, the certification authority.  The only change that is considered 'major' is the updating of the avionics suite.  It is, however, reasonable to assume that if the Twin Otter had remained in continuous production, the avionics would have evolved to what Viking is putting into the aircraft today.  FYI, I need to declare a potential conflict of interest here - I work for Viking, and I am the person responsible for the design of the new flight compartment.  :)  PanEuropean


 * Well, we are glad to have you here as a source of info and guidance. FYI, you might want to review the WP Conflict of Interest Policy and Reliable sources, if you've not read them already. While some connected with companies recuse themselve completly from editng related articles, I don't think that's necessary in your case, as long as you can find outside publications to back up any assertions made in the article (or company press releases published by outside publishers). (This would exclude obviuos assertions like "The aircraft is twin-engined . . .) My view on COI is a little different than some in WP, but as long as you're stating up front who you are, I see no problems with it so far. Two areas I see that you can be of great use in is fact-checking, or spotting errors form other sources, and in supplying photos. First-hand photos are actually encouraged for copyright reasons, as most aircraft companies are still reluctant to release photos free of copyright restrictions. Also, I've found that many editors enjoy hearing anecdotes from company insiders. Even though the talk page is not for that purpose, but for "improving the article", it's possible to make them fit that requirement! ;) I certainly don't want to discourage your contributions in anyway, as they are much appreciated.


 * As to the renaming issue, I'm glad to see some support for keeping the main article here. As I stated above, when the article's coverage on the Viking starts to overshadow the DHCs, it might be time to put the Viking variants on a new page. With some more info and photos such as what you've been adding, along with more contributions by other editors, I can see that happening fairly quickly. I'll try to set up the redirects shortly, but I would like to know what name Viking is using for the aircraft in its publications: Viking DHC-6 Twin Otter, Viking DHC-6, Viking Twin Otter, something else, or a combination of these in different contexts. If we do set up a new article for the 400, we need to pick the name most likey to be used in a search, or the one that the company most often uses, whichever fits best. Thanks again! - BillCJ (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, Viking's marketing literature (on their website) now seems to be consistently referring to the new planes as the Viking DHC-6 Twin Otter Series 400. Still seems weird to me that new planes are being built and flown, but the article still refers to the out-of-production name from 20 years ago. Compare that to the Sears Tower article, which was renamed when the building was, even though it was known by the original name for decades. Ah well. Greg Salter (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It more the point that this is an encyclopedia article which reflects the 840 odd DHC-6s built against a very small number of new-builds that is already mentioned in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Now it's over a hundred, so they're real now. How about we rename it to just DHC-6 Twin Otter, so it covers everything? Greg Salter (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Temperature
Hello all: I made a minor edit to the article today - I removed a reference that stated that the aircraft was rated for use in temperatures as low as -75°C. This is not correct, even though citation 1 (footnote 1) states this. Fact of the matter is that there has never been an upper or a lower temperature limitation published in any of the Aircraft Flight Manuals (AFMs) or maintenance manuals for operation of the legacy (1988 and prior production) aircraft. The certification regulations that were in force at the time these legacy aircraft were granted type certificates did not require maximum and minimum operating temperature limitations to be published. PanEuropean (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Operators
2Dec19: had added Winair as operstor as I had found they use 6 Twins but later found they own only 4 of them. https://www.fly-winair.sx

can confirm that Transport Canada still owns 3 DHC-6 aircraft, and operates 2 of them on a very limited basis. However, all 3 will be out of service shortly. The aircraft are no longer used in Coastal Surveillance since the introduction of the Dash 8 aircraft. Tail Numbers and registration are as follows; 454 C-FCSX, 457 C-FCSU, 459 C-FCSW. If you wish to verify these, the registry is listed on the web for anyone to view: http://wwwapps2.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/ccarcs/aspscripts/en/quicksearch.asp You can check any "Civil Aircraft" registered in Canada on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.96.11 (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The operators list seems to be orginised by country, although the United Kingdom is not a country, should this be spit in to English operators and Scottish operators? (There are no Welsh nor Northern Irish operators.) 94.4.78.127 (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you will find that the United Kingdom is a country and we dont normally use sub-national entities like England or Scotland in operators sections. MilborneOne (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Another Addition
Added Arctic Sunwest Charters to the list of Canadian operators with four DHC-6 aircraft. Nmac-YK (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Puerto Rico should be added - Seaborne

Also Seaborne has added more routes - 2013 - and DHC-6 may be added

+++

Finland and Fiji should exchange places in list - alphabet!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robfwoods (talk • contribs) 04:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Specifications
I corrected errors in the airspeeds for the Series 300 aircraft, and added a new section providing specifications for the Series 400 aircraft. In all cases, the data was taken directly from the most recent issue of the Aircraft Flight Manual / Pilot Operating Handbook (AFM/POH) for the appropriate Series. PanEuropean (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

In the Specifications section, the mass to power ratios are the wrong way round

it says e.g: Power/mass: 10.08 hp/lb (6.132 kW/kg)

it should be Power/mass: 0.099 hp/lb (0.163 kW/kg)

Since the engine power is in the range of 2*500kw=1000 kw and the weight is around 6000kg so power to mass should be in order of 1000 kw/6000kg=0.17 kW/kg

Indonesian Production
I want to get rid of the sentence on Indonesian production. One of the links (http://www.bataviase.co.id/node/563165) is SO amazingly inaccurate and unrealistic as to be laughable. It says, among other things, that the passenger capacity is about 40 seats, and that the current NEW YORK-based manufacturer is in danger of folding. Heck, it doesn't once name Viking or any other manufacturer. The other link is dead but I found the article anyway (http://www.bisnis.com/articles/twin-otter-to-be-produced-in-indonesia), and it says the deal is with cooperation with the manufacturer... DE HAVILLAND CANADA. These aircraft will have a capacity BELOW 100 PASSENGERS (well I should hope so; a 120 seat Twin Otter would be... interesting). And... De Havilland will close their Canadian plant. Anyone against this? Greg Salter (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 7 months later (to the day), no one disagreed... ridiculous rumour removed. Greg Salter (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Operators section looks a bit long...
Hi Wikipedians, as the list of current and former users of this popular aircraft is quite long, maybe it'd be worth to extract it from this article and put that info in a "list" article as has been done with other aircraft. I suggest to leave here just the most significant users (how to ascertain that?), and add a wikilink to the proposed list of users. Please let me know your thoughts, I'm happy to do the work in the next couple weeks. Thanks & regards DPdH (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree to the creation of List of de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter operators, not sure we need asignificant usersbit left behind but that can be looked at after the sub-article is created. MilborneOne (talk) 09:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Very good idea. However, I suggest a more radical solution similar to the one in the Lockheed Constellation article. This means: Keep separate section title "Operators" to facilitate finding it in the "Contents" box, but then just a few lines of more general text. Reason: Otherwise a probably never-ending dispute will arise about who the "most significant users" actually are. --Uli Elch (talk) 10:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both for your sensible feedback, which confirms my initial thoughts. I'll start working on this list article if possible today. Regards, DPdH (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Done... enjoy! Regards, DPdH (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC):::


 * Good job, remember it needs a Template:Copied in both articles so it keeps the edit attributions. MilborneOne (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Accident reports
WhisperToMe (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nahanni Air Services, DHC-6 (C-FPPL), Fort Franklin, 9 October 1984: http://web.archive.org/web/20051109101125/http://www.avsaf.org/reports/CANADA/1984.10.09_NahanniAirServicesLtd_DHC-6-100.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6aBwMXxIC - All seven people were killed

Accidents, again
This is a little confusing; the Operational History section says “The Twin Otter showed outstanding reliability”, but the Notable Accidents section has a looong list of crashes. And the conversation above says there had been 276 incidents up to 2008 (the source given has 270 hull losses now, out of 353 incidents altogether). So is that a lot? The article also says there are about 900 in service, and its been around for 50 years now, so 270 crashes is about 5 a year (and they fly mainly in difficult terrain) but aircraft crashes usually seem (to the general public) to be a rarity. So is it (like the plethora of DC-3 crashes after the war, which were big news at the time) just an artifact of there being so many about, or is it (like the German Starfighter crashes in the 60's) a symptom of something a bit wrong? Do we need a paragraph in the Accident section explaining this? Xyl 54 (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

RESPONSE: The accident rate for the DHC-6 aircraft (all series) has not been a constant 5 per year, as alluded to above. Over 75% of the hull losses occurred during the first 25 years of service, from 1967 to 1982. Several causal factors contributed to this high accident rate: 1) The aircraft was sold into many lesser-developed countries which had very poor aviation infrastructure (runways, weather reporting, etc.), and the unique capabilities of the DHC-6 enabled operations to destinations that were previously not served by aircraft of this size.  2) There was no simulator available for pilot training until the early 1990s. The accident rate dropped dramatically (for operators who provided their pilots with simulator training) once the simulator became available. 3) The aircraft was most commonly operated in remote areas, and aviation regulatory authorities did not always provide an adequate level of oversight in remote areas.

Since the early 1990s, the accident rate for the DHC-6 (measured either by hull losses or by lives lost in accidents) has been only a fraction of what it was during the 60s, 70s, and 80s, and for the past 10 to 15 years, the accident rate has been unremarkable when compared to other aircraft in the 19 to 39 seat category. PanEuropean (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 13:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:synthesis
Hello, in your operators update, you pick information from multiple sources, at the risk of WP:synthesis. The best way would be to have a single reliable source (like flight's census) to avoid skewed comparisons. Thanks!--09:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC) Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not synthesis in that I neither make nor imply a conclusion. The problem is that some of the updated numbers relied on WP:primary sources, coming directly from the airlines web page. I have removed the numbers relying on the airlines claims and restored the 2018 numbers. I have left the Canadian numbers because they use Transport Canada, a secondary source, and there is no need to use 5 year old figures that represented pre-COVID numbers. There are some problems in that list. Such as Seabird Airlines supposedly ceased operations in 2015, but had 6 Twin Otters in 2018. Aviastar (Indonesia) has a 2019 reliable source, "Global Airline Guide 2019 (Part One)". Airliner World (October 2019): 16., that indicates a year after the World Airline Census they only had four aircraft. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 12:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply, and for your table update. There may be no stated conclusion, but it offers a false comparison as some are from one year and others from an other year and no unified criteria is used (eg, being registred is not equal to being in operation). It would be better if everything would come from a single recent reliable source.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but I cant afford the subscription. As long as it is clear they are from different periods it should be OK. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 14:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The 2020 edition is accessible.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw the free version of that yesterday. All it gave was the total number of Twin Otters in service and in storage. It wasn't broken down by operator. Today all I see are the headline and a link to subscribe to read the article. It's $285 or €220 a year. Too much for me. I realise that getting it would probably allow me to update all aircraft articles but... CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Here it is at archive.org. I'm not sure I understand Flight's permissions.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's a different and more detailed one than what I had seen. I've saved a copy as I'm getting ready for work and will look at it more when I get there. One thing I noticed is that the aircraft is listed as a "Viking Air Twin Otter". Do you think that the article should now read "The de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter, also know as a Viking Air Twin Otter, is a Canadian..."? I'm not suggesting moving the article as I think the current name is probably more common. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Viking restored the DHC name and now calls them DHC twin otter!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Updated. Two tables. One for 2018 and another for 2020. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 01:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I removed the 2018 table as it's not so relevant then.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)