2 planes collide in midair on Montreal's South Shore
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
Re: 2 planes collide in midair on Montreal's South Shore
Condolences to the Flight School and families involved.
Last edited by patter on Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: 2 planes collide in midair on Montreal's South Shore
Lets hope some good comes out of this.
On a side note, a new low for the CBC. Uploading an amateur video showing the deceased pilot in the wreckage. I'm delighted my tax payer dollars fund such incompetence.
On a side note, a new low for the CBC. Uploading an amateur video showing the deceased pilot in the wreckage. I'm delighted my tax payer dollars fund such incompetence.
Re: 2 planes collide in midair on Montreal's South Shore
AuxBatOn wrote:This is the airplane that landed on the roof being craned off.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.33 ... /image.jpg
Does that look like a prop that was turning when the airplane hit the ground? If not, when did the engine stop turning and why? There were reports of rough engine sounds before the collision. Would that be a plausible scenario?
But I guess we should just assume language was the issue. From tapes and some random dude talking out of his ass.
Without seeing how the plane was positioned in it's final resting place that conclusion cannot be drawn. If the prop was in a position that gave it clearance when it hit the ground (i.e. laying on it's back with a crushed stabilizer then the engine could have very well be turning. On the other hand it could also mean the engine was stopped if the prop was in a position to contact the ground. There is often multiple explanations for multiple pieces of evidence if you don't have the full context.
As far as the witnesses. You have to be very careful about what people say they saw and heard etc. You often need some sort of physical evidence to back up claims of sputter, noise, flame etc. Or two completely independent sources of the same information that you can confirm have not spoken in some way to taint their recollection. I'm not implying that people purposefully mislead the investigators (although that does happen sometimes) but often people attempt to fill in the blanks themselves when talking to investigators and insert information they believe to make sense from their understanding. Other times they may hear other people talking, or news articles before speaking with investigators and that damages their account as they attempt to reconcile information they witnessed with information they found out afterwards. Often it's not on purpose, but after a while its hard to remember what you actually saw, and what you have learnt second hand, after all if the information you learnt fits the narrative as you know it, you may adapt that information as true (Spoiler alert, often it is not).
All this to say, I agree with other posters. Let the investigation take its course, it's impossible to know all the links in this chain with out being involved in the investigation.
Re: 2 planes collide in midair on Montreal's South Shore
DrSpaceman wrote:I don't think anyone who's ever flown around them during a busy day can honestly say they are really surprised... There's threads about this dating back 9 years.
viewtopic.php?t=41165
viewtopic.php?t=45712
Last one details 10 cadors in 1 month...
How is it possible that this flight school is averaging 5-10 CADORS a month, on a year over year basis?...I ran the CADORS for "Cargair" and got 521 occurrences since 2010.
Is this a lot? or is it just me? Seems like there might be some oversight issues here that Transport could address.....
