Westwind

[pelmet]

More details would be helpful. A meeting(s)with the BoD is sufficient to consider this POI as a problem?

What was the meeting about and what was the timing in relation to the accident.

[digits_]

...

Who fucked up and in what way?

From an outsider's point of view it is not that weird that a CEO gets fired if his company kills/nearly kills a bunch of people, possibly caused by a company culture he either condoned, encouraged or was unaware of.

[HO Driver]

Long story short, this is pretty much the same situation that the FAA is going through with Boeing right now. Too much trust given by the regulator (POI) and not enough oversight.

[Capt. Underpants]

.

The danger in posting something that inflammatory is that someone is almost certain to quote you before you get a chance to have second thoughts. By chance, are you familiar with libel law?

[trey kule]

Yep, no question it may be reproduced by others

teh_flyguy wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 4:58 am
...

Not really that difficult to identify the POI referenced.

[pelmet]

There is something interesting in the statement. He said that the company was under enhanced monitoring when the accident occurred. What would be the reason for this.

[WestTexasDeathPencil]

There is something interesting in the statement. He said that the company was under enhanced monitoring when the accident occurred. What would be the reason for this.

If I had to guess, this would likely be at least part of the reason:

https://globalnews.ca/news/3001219/west ... its-fleet/

[The Hammer]

It's very likely that PTR's had nothing to do with this accident. It usually a documentation issue not an actual compliance issue in this size of company unless there is a misinterpretation of training requirements (CAR 703.98. 704.115, 705.124) which should be caught at a POI level, if it's a manual/training program (FCTM) error. Even if the manual is written correctly a POI should in theory catch it before a PVI/PI.

In most cases it's easier/quicker to ground the pilots and do the training "en masse" if it's a wide spread error.

[WestTexasDeathPencil]

Apologies for the ambiguity, but I'm not inferring that training a factor in this accident . I'm just arguing that it's a possible reason for the company being under enhanced monitoring.

[HO Driver]

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-inve ... c0146.html

This is just getting ridiculous now. 3 years, 6 months and still no final report from TSB! Their website indicates that the investigation has been in the "report phase" since January 2020. Interesting fact, the Swiss Air 111 report took 4 years to complete and that was an extremely complex investigation. This one is pretty easy.
Is anybody on this forum from TSB? Any comment on when we can expect this final report?
I understand the reluctance/refusal from TC to sign-off on the final report as it will certainly shed a negative light on the whole department, but guys you still have to finish the report.
Come on TSB, it's time to step up do your fricken job!

[PilotDAR]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoo ... -1.6228236

[porcsord]

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repo ... c0146.html

[digits_]

Yikes. 20 minutes to get out of the airplane... Quite the miracle so many survived...


Other than company memos, did anything change for northern operations?

[goingnowherefast]

Nope. Crashing a plane in the north every couple years due to contaminated take-offs is a tolerated risk by industry. It's cheaper for the bean counters to stick their head in the sand (snow?) and ignore the risk. It's always someone else's airplane that crashes anyway, so "not our problem, we haven't crashed one".

[rookiepilot]

Nope. Crashing a plane in the north every couple years due to contaminated take-offs is a tolerated risk by industry. It's cheaper for the bean counters to stick their head in the sand (snow?) and ignore the risk. It's always someone else's airplane that crashes anyway, so "not our problem, we haven't crashed one".

The bean counters are responsible for the pilots to not inspect surfaces with a flashlight before going, and for making adjustments at least to critical speeds used?

I love the excuses that seem to be made….for commercial pilots. I don’t get it.

Do they remove the risk management brains and outsource them to the bean counters when you become one?

They f—ed up. It’s ok and necessary to say it.

[goldeneagle]

Nope. Crashing a plane in the north every couple years due to contaminated take-offs is a tolerated risk by industry. It's cheaper for the bean counters to stick their head in the sand (snow?) and ignore the risk. It's always someone else's airplane that crashes anyway, so "not our problem, we haven't crashed one".

I'm sure the folks driving had absolutely nothing to do with the accident, just innocent bystanders while some accountant a thousand miles away caused the airplane to drive off the runway into the bush.

[goingnowherefast]

Then what's the solution?

Did anyone actually read the report? Appendix M talks about the majority of northern pilots taking off contaminated. This is bigger than a couple bone heads in the driver's seat.

I get it though. It's easier to scape goat two pilots than acknowledge the true scope of the problem, and that it's actually hundreds of pilots who routinely take off contaminated.

The bean counters didn't provide the equipment, the resources or support the culture to ensure compliance. In fact they did the opposite. There was inadequate equipment to even inspect the plane. Certainly nothing capable of removing ice. They were happily, and knowingly watching planes fly contaminated throughout the north for years.

Does anyone drive 110km/h in a 100 zone? That's the same culture with "just a little ice".

Flame me all you want, it's not solving the problem.

[SpyPilot]

5 over in the city, 15 over on the highway except on the Coquihalla where I really let her out.

But never, never ever with any ice, not even a little.