Abbotsford Commuter Aircraft Mishap, Feb 23, 2018
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
Re: Abbotsford Commuter Aircraft Mishap, Feb 23, 2018
Aha. Well that explains that.
Re: Abbotsford Commuter Aircraft Mishap, Feb 23, 2018
So much for the "power issue" as mentioned in the CADORS.
Some of the highlights include, PIC delegating flight planning to company personnel, attempting a takeoff in heavy snowfall, aircraft over MTOW, aircraft loaded near AFT C of G limit, surface contamination after 14 minutes outside in heavy snowfall - and no anti-icing/de-icing applied (also, no hold over time certified for heavy snow, so...), continuation bias, etc. Also, post accident examination of wreckage showed no sign of power loss prior to incident - although the pilot did reduce power to idle prior to impact.
Interestingly enough, Island Air Express was to have the AOC pulled on March 28, 2018 due to a lack of operational control, pilot training, airworthiness issues, etc.
Some of the highlights include, PIC delegating flight planning to company personnel, attempting a takeoff in heavy snowfall, aircraft over MTOW, aircraft loaded near AFT C of G limit, surface contamination after 14 minutes outside in heavy snowfall - and no anti-icing/de-icing applied (also, no hold over time certified for heavy snow, so...), continuation bias, etc. Also, post accident examination of wreckage showed no sign of power loss prior to incident - although the pilot did reduce power to idle prior to impact.
Interestingly enough, Island Air Express was to have the AOC pulled on March 28, 2018 due to a lack of operational control, pilot training, airworthiness issues, etc.
Re: Abbotsford Commuter Aircraft Mishap, Feb 23, 2018
In the end...a wing contamination accident. Would have happened regardless of weight and CG.
De-ice fluid was available but not used. As the report mentioned, pulling a plane out of a warm hangar just results in the snow melting as it hits the aircraft. I suppose if it was +1, then the melted snow would stay melted. If it was -10, then they could have kept the hangar doors open let the aircraft cool down for 30 minutes and then the dry snow would blow off the wings and not be adhering. But it was -2C.
It sounds like the thought process of the pilot was to get airborne as quick as possible(that is why he wanted the IFR clearance by phone in the hangar) before the melted falling snow had time to freeze. Obviously, it didn't work, as he had to get the clearance after being towed out of the hangar and held short of the runway for four minutes. It can be extremely difficult to tell if water droplets on the wing have frozen or not when looking at them from a distance.
Rotating at a higher than normal speed and a slow rotation rate might have saved him once he made the decision to takeoff but who knows. Sounds like it was his family on board.
Reminds me of a guy at my old company who could have easily had the aircraft de-iced (by the de-icing people - not himself so it was easy although would have taken a significant amount of time) in wet snow conditions but decided not to for some unknown reason even though other were doing so. Crashed off the end of the runway and destroyed the airplane.
De-ice fluid was available but not used. As the report mentioned, pulling a plane out of a warm hangar just results in the snow melting as it hits the aircraft. I suppose if it was +1, then the melted snow would stay melted. If it was -10, then they could have kept the hangar doors open let the aircraft cool down for 30 minutes and then the dry snow would blow off the wings and not be adhering. But it was -2C.
It sounds like the thought process of the pilot was to get airborne as quick as possible(that is why he wanted the IFR clearance by phone in the hangar) before the melted falling snow had time to freeze. Obviously, it didn't work, as he had to get the clearance after being towed out of the hangar and held short of the runway for four minutes. It can be extremely difficult to tell if water droplets on the wing have frozen or not when looking at them from a distance.
Rotating at a higher than normal speed and a slow rotation rate might have saved him once he made the decision to takeoff but who knows. Sounds like it was his family on board.
Reminds me of a guy at my old company who could have easily had the aircraft de-iced (by the de-icing people - not himself so it was easy although would have taken a significant amount of time) in wet snow conditions but decided not to for some unknown reason even though other were doing so. Crashed off the end of the runway and destroyed the airplane.
Last edited by pelmet on Sat Aug 24, 2019 8:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Abbotsford Commuter Aircraft Mishap, Feb 23, 2018
The report clarifies some earlier discussion on this thread. Concerning a reported power loss......
"Nothing was found to indicate that any type of pre-existing, or in-flight, system malfunction played a role in this occurrence."
"As the aircraft took off from the runway and the landing gear was retracted, the aircraft immediately banked to the left. Although this left bank was initially perceived as a power loss on the left-hand engine, nothing was found to support this theory."
Concerning holdover times...…
"Pre-flight external inspection and is mandatory when ground icing conditions are present. In situations where holdover time is being used as a decision-making criterion, if the holdover time has been exceeded, takeoff can occur only if a pre-takeoff contamination inspection is completed or the aircraft is de-iced or anti-iced again. The pre-takeoff contamination inspection does not require a tactile examination when the manufacturer has identified representative aircraft surfaces that can be reliably observed during day and night operations to judge whether critical surfaces are contaminated or not. Of note, the manufacturer has not identified a “representative aircraft surface” that can be used, in lieu of a tactile inspection...."
In addition.....
This was not a particularly bright thing to do on the part of the two in the cockpit.....
"The pilot and the passenger seated in the right-hand crew seat were not wearing the available shoulder harnesses. As a result, they sustained serious head injuries during the impact sequence."
"Nothing was found to indicate that any type of pre-existing, or in-flight, system malfunction played a role in this occurrence."
"As the aircraft took off from the runway and the landing gear was retracted, the aircraft immediately banked to the left. Although this left bank was initially perceived as a power loss on the left-hand engine, nothing was found to support this theory."
Concerning holdover times...…
"Pre-flight external inspection and is mandatory when ground icing conditions are present. In situations where holdover time is being used as a decision-making criterion, if the holdover time has been exceeded, takeoff can occur only if a pre-takeoff contamination inspection is completed or the aircraft is de-iced or anti-iced again. The pre-takeoff contamination inspection does not require a tactile examination when the manufacturer has identified representative aircraft surfaces that can be reliably observed during day and night operations to judge whether critical surfaces are contaminated or not. Of note, the manufacturer has not identified a “representative aircraft surface” that can be used, in lieu of a tactile inspection...."
In addition.....
This was not a particularly bright thing to do on the part of the two in the cockpit.....
"The pilot and the passenger seated in the right-hand crew seat were not wearing the available shoulder harnesses. As a result, they sustained serious head injuries during the impact sequence."
Re: Abbotsford Commuter Aircraft Mishap, Feb 23, 2018
Kind of like an FBO I know they open the doors to the hangar, and leave the radiant heaters on. The Ops Mgr " I know what I am doing" holding my tongue isn't my strong suit...... I have other stories also
