Accident in North Vancouver

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

boeingboy
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1515
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:57 pm
Location: West coast

Re: Accident in North Vancouver

Post by boeingboy »

Well he said:


Quote:

before taking off after I did what is called a "Walk around" and verified the looks fine and checked the fuel tanks, we still had 20 Gallons of fuel, which means we had 2hrs and a half remaining of fuel.


which I take to mean he dipped the fuel on the walk-around.
Well....my bad if he did. I only saw the interview he did with CTV - which he said "TSB must be wrong....I had 20 gallons when I took off. I don't know - maybe there was a leak or something"

Doesn't really matter though - there is absolutely no excuse for running out of gas on a clear day, leisurely flight around the lower mainland.
---------- ADS -----------
 
fins
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 12:05 pm

Re: Accident in North Vancouver

Post by fins »

boeingboy wrote:
Well he said:


Quote:

before taking off after I did what is called a "Walk around" and verified the looks fine and checked the fuel tanks, we still had 20 Gallons of fuel, which means we had 2hrs and a half remaining of fuel.


which I take to mean he dipped the fuel on the walk-around.
Well....my bad if he did. I only saw the interview he did with CTV - which he said "TSB must be wrong....I had 20 gallons when I took off. I don't know - maybe there was a leak or something"

Doesn't really matter though - there is absolutely no excuse for running out of gas on a clear day, leisurely flight around the lower mainland.
I agree 'boeingboy' I flew there several times in 172 ,182 and had fuel issues albeit tough to get fuel at Tofino airport had to wait 3 hours sometimes....nevertheless when in doubt; don't go.
I think Transport Canada will not fall for that...dippin the tank story.
In bush flying decision making an integral part to survive, Insurance companies seeing this crash result from running out of fuel will make it not!
The fact is it cant be 20 gallons at departure! the numbers don't lie!
Am glad luckily no one got killed........
Winds where westerly and strong I bet, that being said an increased burn...you add to the 300 mile return trip!
Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, as Judy would say..baloney!
---------- ADS -----------
 
CpnCrunch
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4016
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Accident in North Vancouver

Post by CpnCrunch »

https://www.facebook.com/GlobalBC/posts ... 1017547808

"Octavio Hernandez Van Steenberghe Well, The story goes like this. We had 5 hrs and 15 min of fuel when we left Langley airport towards Tofino, on the way there everything was fine,we made it in 1hr and 50 min and before taking off after I did what is called a "Walk around" and verified the looks fine and checked the fuel tanks, we still had 20 Gallons of fuel, which means we had 2hrs and a half remaining of fuel. After 1hr and 10 min passed after leaving Tofino; right after passing by lions Gate bridge is when we lost power, engine starting sounding rough and immediately tried to identify the cause of the problem following by trying to re-start the engine around 3 times without success. Ending up declaring in state of emergency (engine failure on flight) with the ATC in operation at that moment and immediately started looking for a safe place to land, at first I thought on landing on the highway eastbound but since it was rush hour and Sunday which made it a very busy time, had to deviate to look for other options while I was already descending. Saw to parks on either side but unfortunately they seemed too busy with families having bbq's, kids playing and running around and had to look for another place, the only possibly place left I had was W 1st Street and then started a right turn towards it but i noticed there were numerous power lines across the street plus a fuel truck was turning ahead of me and end it up by doing a left turn towards a parking lot I saw at the very last moment and started heading towards it.
The reason why some people didn't hear the engine sound is because I had to shut it down intentionally as part of the forced approach procedure, by cutting off the fuel supply, electrical systems off, and basically all this to avoid any possible spark that could start a fire on the landing. Unfortunately / Fortunately got hooked up by a cable from Telus I believe (sorry people if i cause some disruption on your service), backing down the plane causing it to impacting on the fence and well I think this actually helped us out by absorbing the impact force of 60 Kts roughly 100 km/hr and ended up in the position you guys all saw probably, with very minor scratches on 3 of us except by one of the guys who covered his girlfriend with his arm getting it broken we vacate the plane thought the broken windshield since the doors got trapped by the wing strut and the bent wing on the other side even though we had the doors open before impacting but Happy this ended up this way because I know the result could have been way worst specially if the plane would have crashed on someone's car, house or even on someone. I wouldn't be in this state of mind I am now. Thanks to everyone who stopped immediately to help us out by calling 911 and thank you for taking your time to read this unforgettable moment."
---------- ADS -----------
 
RatherBeFlying
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 683
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 9:27 am
Location: Toronto

Re: Accident in North Vancouver

Post by RatherBeFlying »

Mixture?

Gas cap?
---------- ADS -----------
 
cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1632
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: Accident in North Vancouver

Post by cncpc »

CpnCrunch wrote:https://www.facebook.com/GlobalBC/posts ... 1017547808

"Octavio Hernandez Van Steenberghe Well, The story goes like this. We had 5 hrs and 15 min of fuel when we left Langley airport towards Tofino, on the way there everything was fine,we made it in 1hr and 50 min and before taking off after I did what is called a "Walk around" and verified the looks fine and checked the fuel tanks, we still had 20 Gallons of fuel, which means we had 2hrs and a half remaining of fuel. After 1hr and 10 min passed after leaving Tofino; right after passing by lions Gate bridge is when we lost power, engine starting sounding rough and immediately tried to identify the cause of the problem following by trying to re-start the engine around 3 times without success. Ending up declaring in state of emergency (engine failure on flight) with the ATC in operation at that moment and immediately started looking for a safe place to land, at first I thought on landing on the highway eastbound but since it was rush hour and Sunday which made it a very busy time, had to deviate to look for other options while I was already descending. Saw to parks on either side but unfortunately they seemed too busy with families having bbq's, kids playing and running around and had to look for another place, the only possibly place left I had was W 1st Street and then started a right turn towards it but i noticed there were numerous power lines across the street plus a fuel truck was turning ahead of me and end it up by doing a left turn towards a parking lot I saw at the very last moment and started heading towards it.
The reason why some people didn't hear the engine sound is because I had to shut it down intentionally as part of the forced approach procedure, by cutting off the fuel supply, electrical systems off, and basically all this to avoid any possible spark that could start a fire on the landing. Unfortunately / Fortunately got hooked up by a cable from Telus I believe (sorry people if i cause some disruption on your service), backing down the plane causing it to impacting on the fence and well I think this actually helped us out by absorbing the impact force of 60 Kts roughly 100 km/hr and ended up in the position you guys all saw probably, with very minor scratches on 3 of us except by one of the guys who covered his girlfriend with his arm getting it broken we vacate the plane thought the broken windshield since the doors got trapped by the wing strut and the bent wing on the other side even though we had the doors open before impacting but Happy this ended up this way because I know the result could have been way worst specially if the plane would have crashed on someone's car, house or even on someone. I wouldn't be in this state of mind I am now. Thanks to everyone who stopped immediately to help us out by calling 911 and thank you for taking your time to read this unforgettable moment."
I see.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
User avatar
AirFrame
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2610
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Accident in North Vancouver

Post by AirFrame »

I think he used a dipstick for a 172 with Long Range tanks (52 gal) vs. one for Short Range (42 gal).

If he used a LR dipstick in a SR tank and saw 42 gal (total) at YNJ, that would be consistent with his statement that he had 5h15min of fuel when he left YNJ (assuming 8 gal/hr burn rate). It does overlook that 4 gal are unusable according to the POH.

He'd only have about (42/52), or 0.8x that though... 34 gal actual.

Dipping in YAZ he says he saw 20 gal and that he expected 2.5 hours from that (again, 8 gal/hr). With a LR dip stick, that would mean he has 16 gal actual.

As an aside, it would mean he used about 18 gal to get there or about 9 gal/hr for a 2 hour flight, which is a little higher than he expected but within tolerance for a heavily loaded 172.

Subtract the 4 unusable gallons, and that leaves only 12 gal actually usable at departure from YAZ, and at 9/hr that would be about 1h20min on the way back when things go silent.

The Flightaware track stops at 1h15min into the flight.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4413
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Accident in North Vancouver

Post by rookiepilot »

AirFrame wrote:I think he used a dipstick for a 172 with Long Range tanks (52 gal) vs. one for Short Range (42 gal).

If he used a LR dipstick in a SR tank and saw 42 gal (total) at YNJ, that would be consistent with his statement that he had 5h15min of fuel when he left YNJ (assuming 8 gal/hr burn rate). It does overlook that 4 gal are unusable according to the POH.

He'd only have about (42/52), or 0.8x that though... 34 gal actual.

Dipping in YAZ he says he saw 20 gal and that he expected 2.5 hours from that (again, 8 gal/hr). With a LR dip stick, that would mean he has 16 gal actual.

As an aside, it would mean he used about 18 gal to get there or about 9 gal/hr for a 2 hour flight, which is a little higher than he expected but within tolerance for a heavily loaded 172.

Subtract the 4 unusable gallons, and that leaves only 12 gal actually usable at departure from YAZ, and at 9/hr that would be about 1h20min on the way back when things go silent.

The Flightaware track stops at 1h15min into the flight.
This makes a lot of sense with multi fleet flight school aircraft.
---------- ADS -----------
 
BeaverDreamer
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Accident in North Vancouver

Post by BeaverDreamer »

"We had 5 hrs and 15 min of fuel when we left Langley airport towards Tofino, on the way there everything was fine,we made it in 1hr and 50 min and before taking off after I did what is called a "Walk around" and verified the looks fine and checked the fuel tanks, we still had 20 Gallons of fuel, which means we had 2hrs and a half remaining of fuel"

So 5:15 of fuel in a 172 is what, 42ish gallons? If over half your fuel is gone halfway through your trip there's a good chance you're not going to make it back. Curious why the burn would be that high though. I won't make any assumptions, in the end the guy did a great job keeping everyone alive.
---------- ADS -----------
 
7ECA
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1281
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 4:33 pm

Re: Accident in North Vancouver

Post by 7ECA »

rookiepilot wrote:This makes a lot of sense with multi fleet flight school aircraft.
The aircraft is privately owned/registered, with three owners. Guess the other two are probably real impressed after this incident - and having their names all over this as well.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CpnCrunch
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4016
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Accident in North Vancouver

Post by CpnCrunch »

7ECA wrote:
The aircraft is privately owned/registered, with three owners. Guess the other two are probably real impressed after this incident - and having their names all over this as well.
The guy who crashed it wasn't even one of the three owners.

http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/saf-sec-sur/2/c ... hSimp.aspx
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4413
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Accident in North Vancouver

Post by rookiepilot »

7ECA wrote:
rookiepilot wrote:This makes a lot of sense with multi fleet flight school aircraft.
The aircraft is privately owned/registered, with three owners. Guess the other two are probably real impressed after this incident - and having their names all over this as well.
My mistake thought I read it was a rental AC
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
AirFrame
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2610
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Accident in North Vancouver

Post by AirFrame »

rookiepilot wrote:My mistake thought I read it was a rental AC
It was rented to the pilot at the time.
---------- ADS -----------
 
geneticistx
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Accident in North Vancouver

Post by geneticistx »

AirFrame wrote:I think he used a dipstick for a 172 with Long Range tanks (52 gal) vs. one for Short Range (42 gal).

If he used a LR dipstick in a SR tank and saw 42 gal (total) at YNJ, that would be consistent with his statement that he had 5h15min of fuel when he left YNJ (assuming 8 gal/hr burn rate). It does overlook that 4 gal are unusable according to the POH.

He'd only have about (42/52), or 0.8x that though... 34 gal actual.

Dipping in YAZ he says he saw 20 gal and that he expected 2.5 hours from that (again, 8 gal/hr). With a LR dip stick, that would mean he has 16 gal actual.

As an aside, it would mean he used about 18 gal to get there or about 9 gal/hr for a 2 hour flight, which is a little higher than he expected but within tolerance for a heavily loaded 172.

Subtract the 4 unusable gallons, and that leaves only 12 gal actually usable at departure from YAZ, and at 9/hr that would be about 1h20min on the way back when things go silent.

The Flightaware track stops at 1h15min into the flight.
math is hard
---------- ADS -----------
 
geneticistx
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Accident in North Vancouver

Post by geneticistx »

AirFrame wrote:I think he used a dipstick for a 172 with Long Range tanks (52 gal) vs. one for Short Range (42 gal).

If he used a LR dipstick in a SR tank and saw 42 gal (total) at YNJ, that would be consistent with his statement that he had 5h15min of fuel when he left YNJ (assuming 8 gal/hr burn rate). It does overlook that 4 gal are unusable according to the POH.

He'd only have about (42/52), or 0.8x that though... 34 gal actual.

Dipping in YAZ he says he saw 20 gal and that he expected 2.5 hours from that (again, 8 gal/hr). With a LR dip stick, that would mean he has 16 gal actual.

As an aside, it would mean he used about 18 gal to get there or about 9 gal/hr for a 2 hour flight, which is a little higher than he expected but within tolerance for a heavily loaded 172.

Subtract the 4 unusable gallons, and that leaves only 12 gal actually usable at departure from YAZ, and at 9/hr that would be about 1h20min on the way back when things go silent.

The Flightaware track stops at 1h15min into the flight.
math is hard

It truly remarkable. TSB took NO time in drawing conclusion. Good forced landing, though.
---------- ADS -----------
 
7ECA
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1281
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 4:33 pm

Re: Accident in North Vancouver

Post by 7ECA »

CpnCrunch wrote: The guy who crashed it wasn't even one of the three owners.

http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/saf-sec-sur/2/c ... hSimp.aspx
I stand corrected then. Guess those fellows are even less thrilled about how their aircraft was operated.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CpnCrunch
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4016
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Accident in North Vancouver

Post by CpnCrunch »

geneticistx wrote:
It truly remarkable. TSB took NO time in drawing conclusion. Good forced landing, though.
Well, I think they were just stating the facts, i.e. there was no gas left in the tanks. I hope they do a little more investigation to find out why.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
AirFrame
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2610
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Accident in North Vancouver

Post by AirFrame »

CpnCrunch wrote:Well, I think they were just stating the facts, i.e. there was no gas left in the tanks. I hope they do a little more investigation to find out why.
They are. I talked with them yesterday.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”