CID wrote:Yes the cultural background is important. You need a Canadian pilot to be perfectly safe…...
Nobody does anything stupid here!
I don't recall anyone saying that without a CDN pilot at the controls, this or any other flight is doomed.
The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of highly experienced, international float pilots are Canadian.
The fact that this particular Captain was not Canadian is not the cause of the accident, rather the apparent lack of appropriate experience seems to be.
A fully loaded C208 EX Amphib is not a toy and can be a handful, yet a lot of highly experienced professional aviators tend to consider it a piece of cake to operate. This is the tragic result of that line of thinking.
I'm not sure how that guy ever got insured to sit in the left seat. Maybe time will tell and the facts will come out. Maybe not.
The more I fly off the water, the more I realize how lucky I was to have the minimum skills to get me through the early years, and hopefully continue to grow skills to handle the challenges I accept. Simple fear plays a part in this, and reaction to that fear probably keeps me more safe. I could never afford the cost of an accident, and valued safety, and wholeness of airplane too much to take risks. I still can't afford the cost of an accident, and value wholeness of airplane more (as it's mine, and now I'll have to fix it), but I also have the fear that if I bugger it up, you lot here will be writing pages about my poor decision.
I have worked in China, and flown as a part of a Chinese crew. I have witnessed what appeared to me to be a different philosophy toward flying. Much more mechanical: Pilot does this, airplane will do that. Find a curriculum, and train the pilot, once done, that pilot is ready for anything, and will not require assistance, help or mentoring. I simply do not agree with that. No matter how well trained you are, or how experienced, you can always learn something, and it might simply be that you rethink what you were about to do. Solo refresher training, so to speak. But that is based upon experience.
Perhaps this Caravan pilot had not had the opportunity to "learn" on his own. A few dozen circuits in that environment, just to get used to the feel of the place, and the landmarks. A few close calls to remind himself that there are variables, and you'd better allow for them. In my opinion, that was not a crash on the "nearly could have made it" side of things, it was not even close. That takeoff should have been an abort 5 seconds earlier, even after the mistake of even attempting it.
My fear is that culturally, most of the people associated with that accident will move on, without really learning anything which would be applied to making things better for the future. Insurance companies will pay out, but it will happen again. Enough money, and cultural business courtesy (pressure) will be applied, that another pilot will be insured to do this in the future. I opine that perhaps the insurer did not have/apply the resource to understand the skills verses risks in insuring this operation with that crew.
We in Canada (float flying blood in our veins and all) won't learn much from this accident - we could see it coming from the beginning - I just could not believe I was watching it! My concern is that the highly trained, low experience, have not learned to actually fear, white shirt & epaulets pilots are not seen by management as not yet having what it takes. The boss says go fly, the pilot says okay, it must be good to do, I've been told to do it! Many times in the past, the boss sent me in the floatplane to fly a run, but very often with specific task aware words of advice or caution. the difference was my boss(s) were very experienced floatplane pilots themselves. Probably, this Chinese operation lacked a boss who had done this themselves a thousand times....
No matter what, when you bring "culture" in the ethnic sense, not the company or safety sense, into the discussion, all sorts of prejudices arise. Along with arguments full of logical fallacies. In many cases it's just a case of miscommunication or lack of translation skills. Ultimately, these arguments try to apply those fallacies to persons who "look" like they belong to a different culture and not someone who is immersed in it.
What seems to be implied here has that Canadian float pilots have better skills than Chinese float pilots simply because of differences in culture. PilotDar points out a "culture" where operation is structured. No room for what we often refer to as common sense to help improve things. I don't want to put words in your mouth PilotDAR, that's just my perception.
Meanwhile in Canada, the largest concentration of float/amphibious flying (arguably) is on the west coast. A region that is plagued with wrecks caused by bad decisions. Accident rates well above rates in other segments and even other countries. Those free thinking pilots seem to think nothing of taking off and entering IMC in a Goose or a Beaver. As long as they have their trusty Garmin 295! OK...way too generalist but TCCA officially acknowledged there is a problem and it's easy to find an examples of very bad, even stupid mistakes made by Canadian seaplane pilots that cause an over representation of float operators in accident statistics. I don't want to create the impression that I think EVERY Canadian float pilot is inept.
So what would induce a Chinese operator to draw float/amphibious pilots from a country that has such a dismal record in that sector? Is it because we're so good at it or is it because we'll be willing to take bigger risks or is it because there a so many seaplane pilots in Canada that you might just get a good one if you look hard?
I'd suggest you practice the technique solo, so you can get the hang of it before doing it fully loaded in a critical situation.
I'd suggest you take some time to learn how to make proper decisions so you do not need to use this technique. If you have gotten yourself in a critical situation, your decision making sucks. This is the kind of thinking that results in the accident here...I can save it instead of aborting with some super technique.
One of the most difficult things in training float pilots is having them understand when to use certain techniques.
They seem to always find circumstances where they are needed or just like to practice them solo to add them to their bag of tricks.
of course when things go wrong occassionaly and they are faced with the what were you thinking question, they rationalize it every which way they can.
I have to agree with you CID. Some of the comments about China posted here would be laughable except I think maybe the posters actually believe what they are posting.
---------- ADS -----------
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
trey kule wrote:
I'd suggest you take some time to learn how to make proper decisions so you do not need to use this technique. If you have gotten yourself in a critical situation, your decision making sucks. This is the kind of thinking that results in the accident here...I can save it instead of aborting with some super technique.
I roll a float all the time, not just in "critical" locations or situations. There is nothing crazy or reckless or super human about the technique.
Some guy ripping around the corner at Brockton Oval who's not expecting to see an Otter taking off towards the shoal marker, or an ugly line of swell rolling towards you that wasn't apparent when you began your slide, or a 40 foot chunk of old growth deadhead suddenly looming in your not so distant future are just a few examples of where knowing exactly when you will become airborne comes in very handy indeed.
My float is lifting, nice, I will be flying in the next hundred feet. Great. Or, my float is still heavy on the water, I won't be flying anytime soon and I won't be clearing whatever is looming in front of me, good thing to know, max reverse, push the nose forward, full stop within a hundred feet or so, no damage done, no harm, not foul, it's all good.
I'm as safety conscious as they get and I can assure you, my decision making does not "suck".
Well said. Also there are floatplanes that will not fly at anywhere near gross weight without rolling a float. So better learn it and get proficient before graduating from the empty trainers.
there are floatplanes that will not fly at anywhere near gross weight without rolling a float.
The rolling the float out trick works well, and I think should be a required skill. I do it commonly. However, an aircraft will not be certified on floats at a weight so great that with normal pilot skill, it cannot be flown right off the water on both. Though I have not flown a Caravan floatplane in passenger commercial service, I can imagine the operator discouraging rolling and yawing the plane on the water, and alarming the fare paying pax in the back.
CID wrote:So what would induce a Chinese operator to draw float/amphibious pilots from a country that has such a dismal record in that sector? Is it because we're so good at it or is it because we'll be willing to take bigger risks or is it because there a so many seaplane pilots in Canada that you might just get a good one if you look hard?
Culture is for petri dishes.
Very harsh IMO.
You'll find lots of good float pilots in Canada and you don't have to look hard. Loads of ones who don't take big risks and who don't think they are "that good". Just professionals who take their jobs seriously and perform it safely.
Idiots are idiots. They are in every industry. VFR into IMC on a Garmin 295 is an idiot move and it's not limited to Canadians.
"Investigators have also checked the waters there and found no hindrances that could affect the plane's operation" he said ("XU WEI, a city government spokesperson"/ in news article above).
The small bay alone could be a hindrance with the wrong component, but no wx-hist available there (to check it out).
Maiden voyage is just after purchase where short takeoff distance requirement is usually going to be adequately highlighed (is advertised as very able aircraft in most sales pitches). If purchasers or their reps are on board, there could also be a factor there of trying to impress, which might some have precedence already in other synopses from past accidents. Combine that with something else unforseen ... it becomes easier to imagine something more than merely a simple pilot error / mistake (ie a more complicated training matter).
