Crash @ North Spirit Lake Ont (4 dead, 1 survivor)

[cncpc]

Cncpc, theory sounds good all for one thing.
The prop on the left. Barely any damage... suggests no power on the left.

The miss-match in time is a big question mark for me. We have a person here confirming that the ELT went off around 10am. 0751 departure, makes 2hrs 10 of flying. He could have been delayed due to a snow plow (As was suggested earlier) or a few missed attempts at getting in.
He comes in, left tank goes dry, engine stops and he ends up short of the runway? That flight time suggests flight to get there plus 30 min reserve.

I'm wondering if he isn't in the situation Mark Tayfel was in. No fuel at his destination, has to be back on what he has. That could be the urgency with the snow plow. He wouldn't be out of fuel there, so the engine failure possibility would come from either mechanical or a blown tank with no time to recover and with gear and flaps down.

It looks so much like a normal approach in which a frozen lake came up and hit the airplane. It may have been with an engine out, but there is no pan or mayday and he was on freq with the snow plow guy.

He would have had some things on his mind, that is for sure.

Correction on the snow plow guy opening the door. I realize it was a mile away from the airport.

[SoundAir11]

On the contrary Capt Cranium, no one here is attacking this poor guys character. How do you "force opinions" onto people through an aviation forum? The thing I get out of this thread is that this relatively inexperienced IFR pilot's decision making was highly influence by his employers attitude and operating practices. I find it unprofessional to say; lets just carry on and say nothing until the TSB accident report comes out 18 months from now. In any accident you start with the circumstantial evidence and go from there. The circumstances in this accident are red flags. The investigation is far from over and more facts will surface but I for one have learned a lot just from reading this thread and that is the goal of any accident investigation. Th truth hurts sometimes and sometimes you have to face the truth rather than something that just makes you feel good.

[Lloyd YWG FIC]

deleted

[The Hammer]

Cncpc, theory sounds good all for one thing.
The prop on the left. Barely any damage... suggests no power on the left.

The miss-match in time is a big question mark for me. We have a person here confirming that the ELT went off around 10am. 0751 departure, makes 2hrs 10 of flying. He could have been delayed due to a snow plow (As was suggested earlier) or a few missed attempts at getting in.
He comes in, left tank goes dry, engine stops and he ends up short of the runway? That flight time suggests flight to get there plus 30 min reserve.

Ran out of gas? How was he getting home? I would be more pissed as CP/Ops if you knowingly landed there without enough gas to go somewhere else for more (normal ops assumed) ie with YRL so close. YRL is the nearest available avgas and I doubt he planned to go there. YWG was nice so even IFR gas to YWG shouldn't be a problem.

It's been awhile since my PA-31 days but I believe the AFM says to land with the fuel on the "mains". I have definitely had the engine sputter, but not quit, when burning on the aux's in cruise (the gauges suck) so that shouldn't have been a factor. It didn't burn to a crisp without gas onboard (as demonstrated twice by this airline in the past, no gas=no fire )

Educated guess is he was on some form of the "mexican ILS" (VFR at 1 sm and 300 agl over non-built up areas is legal with ops spec 004) and something went wrong, ie whiteout, a cabin distraction, left fuel selector on aux tank and blew a tank. If he wasn't on the OBS then he probably circled into the ground while looking for the runway, unlikely from the impact picures, you usually cartwheel like when a float plane catches a wingtip or float when in a bank on impact.

[Doc]

The "home made" OBS approach is not legal, but can be quite effective and get you into where you want to go safely in most conditions. I'm not advocating this procedure,

Okay, I got a wee bit of a chuckle out of "I'm not advocating this procedure...." part. I know you're not...it just came out funny.
Of course it can be done. As you stated, it's not to be used down to CATIII limits. It's good for orientation purposes on a circling approach. Runway is sighted and you OBS the one you want to land on, and go pick it up. As a stand alone "approach" it's totally "buyer beware"....you are being a test pilot. Are you being paid to be a test pilot? Where's the "shame" in descending to sector, and calling it a day?
Funny thing is, a carefully executed "meat ball, home grown", OBS approach, (now I'm not advocating this) is a Hell of a lot more accurate than most (if not all) NDB approaches. Think that one over. You have steady track guidance (as long as you have the correct track dialled in?) and a digital count down of distance to go to the runway? I can see the temptation, but your "limits" had better be at lest 700 feet, agl.
The low fuel scenario? I hope not. It's been years since I've flown the HO. How much time do you get with full tanks? Can you fill the tanks with the load he had on board?

[cncpc]

I just don't see someone knowingly, with 150hrs charter experience, drive that airplane below 500ft AGL

This is the part that I don't understand as well. The "home made" OBS approach is not legal, but can be quite effective and get you into where you want to go safely in most conditions. I'm not advocating this procedure, but simply stating a fact. I would also guess that a fairly large percentage of users on this forum have performed them from time to time or at least witnessed it being done.

The thing is when these illegal approaches are taking place, you're not supposed to go down to levels equivalent to the DH of an ILS. And I don't think anyone in their right mind would go below, say, 500 AGL, as stated by Captain Dick Head (very clever, BTW) . Especially in the weather conditions at the present time of this particular crash. So... why was he that low? Was it because he was trying to sneak in? Or did something else happen? Icing perhaps and he just couldn't maintain altitude? Who knows? What I do find hard to believe is that anyone, experienced or not, would be that low on purpose. Runway altitude how far back from the threshold???

There is no pan or mayday at any time, and he is talking to the snowplow operator.

I see what you're talking about Lloyd, that white streak on the boot near the tip? Could just be impacted snow. Or could be all that is left of an ice buildup. It is the farthest away from the fire.

I expect that crash survivability is going to be an issue in the final report and particularly how such a destructive fire, or any fire at all, could occur from a controlled descent into a snow covered lake. Because of the fire damage in the nose, I'm thinking the Janitrol has something to do with this, as well as broken fuel lines and the boost pumps on. I just can't see a cabin burning out like that without some extraordinary fuel source other than carpets and the seats,etc.

I doubt he took full fuel out of YWG, and I can see the numbers working out where he would be nervous about his fuel to get home, what with his limited options to refuel anywhere around there.

Certainly at least one of the left prop blades has no damage at all. That may be because it only chopped snow, but it seems to me it doesn't take much to bend a blade if its turning at all. Anybody got an idea of how deep the snow would be on that lake?

I do believe he was navigating the approach, rather than circling. The trail is at 140, the runway at 130, not sure what you'd make of that, possibly just that's the way it went on first bounce off the nose wheel.

[cncpc]

The low fuel scenario? I hope not. It's been years since I've flown the HO. How much time do you get with full tanks? Can you fill the tanks with the load he had on board?

I know you probably couldn't legally fill a straight Ho with that load, which I expect included everything you could pack in besides people and bags. Wasn't this a Chieftain, though?

I don't think there is any more tankage on a Chieftain than there is on a straight Ho, though, and you've got a higher fuel burn, so I'm thinking less endurance.

I took a straight Ho from Yellowknife to Lynn Lake a few years back. Copilot, two LIDAR operators, about 250 lbs of LIDAR gear, stuff for three weeks in Inuvik, and we could only run with full mains and half auxs. It's 600 miles and we had about 50 minutes fuel left when we landed.

This is 400 miles there and back. Seems workable.

There is going to be an issue as to why only one person, who didn't suffer any burns, was able to get out, and what was behind everybody. Cargo restraint may be an issue, in fact cargo is scattered on the wreckage trail. Something very flammable was on the back shelf on the door side.

[Just another canuck]

Okay, I got a wee bit of a chuckle out of "I'm not advocating this procedure...." part. I know you're not...it just came out funny.

Haha... well, I don't want to give the wrong impression now.

Where's the "shame" in descending to sector, and calling it a day?

No shame in that at all... but you and I both know descending down to 3000 feet wouldn't have got the pilot anywhere that day and I would bet he knew that before he took off. The operator is worried about the cost of having a missed approach and returning, losing all that profit. Why not wait then? I stated this already... what's the rush? Leave an hour later or a day later. Company still receives there revenue and customers are happy. It's not a common occurrence for the customer to go to another operator because of a weather delay. Maintenance, etc. would be another thing. So, just wait it out and everyone wins.

Funny thing is, a carefully executed "meat ball, home grown", OBS approach, (now I'm not advocating this) is a Hell of a lot more accurate than most (if not all) NDB approaches.

I think you could probably include VOR and VOR/DME approaches in there too... I follow my GPS and cross-reference with my VOR or ILS. It's simply an easier instrument to work with.

[Redneck_pilot86]

I have outlined where the crash site is. Pretty much on the centreline

Maybe he was visual, lets say in one mile, flew a RH downwind, turned base over the peninsula just left of the crash sight, and as he turned final he accidentally flew over the lake and lost visual reference? If he is already at 2-300', and maybe he did have the runway OBS'd, but that doesn't mean he was doing a let down IMC, I know if I was flying in bare minimum vfr I would likely OBS it as well, it can help with situational awareness and make turning final a lot easier. So he turns final over the peninsula and its shitty out, but he has ground contact, so he continues...gets into a whiteout when the peninsula ends, if he lost visual reference and got distracted trying to regain ground contact instead of starting a climb, it wouldn't take much of a descent to hit the lake surface where he did. I for one can't tell the difference between a mile vis and 3/4 of a mile vis when flying over terrain like that, and throw a bit of drizzle onto the windshield it could all add up to make forward vis over the nose almost nil, but with ground contact to the sides and forward. Not a smart position to put yourself in, but I think its completely plausible and with an inexperienced guy trying to impress a new boss, it could happen.


Edit: I tried to quote the picture posted near the bottom of page 8, but it didn't copy.

[spaner]

First off I agree that the thread is for the benefit of everyone here. The situation is sad and I don't think that anyone want's to seem heartless but a "respectful silence" has no place here, IMHO

Having said that, my Ho days are long gone but with the few thousand hours on type that I do have I can tell you a few things for sure. "Blowing" aux tanks on a 310 or 350 is a normal practice and is always unexpected; like watching water boil. After scaring yourself a few times you will learn to "save" the last 1/4 tank (X2), for the middle of the return leg.
Left side factor? BWDIK
Also, no matter what type (well most) of windshield ANTI-ice system, including the PA-31 series, it will be ineffective if not activated prior to the incounter. With few exceptions.
Most importantly, and other 350 drivers can confirm, the ac will not be able to maintain altitude with one engine out, feathered or not. It will on paper, but not in practice. This is because operators will degrade (turn down) the maximum available boost level at max power. They do this for operational reasons to reduce wear and make use of full TBO numbers. If red line boost level is not available at max power, altitude can not be maintained at GW.
All manuals quote "red line power".
What is their "unwritten" standard maintanence procedure here? What are their setting?
This actually cost me my last, and final, Ho job. Too smart for my own good. I would refuse to accept the aircraft from maintanence without it passing a "full power" run-up check. Easy to set, waste-gate valve adjustment. "Fire wall power setting", for emergency only.

Any 350 drivers out there want to quote their company numbers? How many inches below red line?
Yes, this industry is ugly.

[BEFAN5]

On the TSB fotos #3 and #4, left wing, almost at the tip. Anyone else see anything on the leading edge or is it my overworked imagination.

Looks like a little bit of impact icing or rime. Hardly enough to bring a plane down (I think). Of course, the heat from the fire may have destroyed any sort of icing theory.

[JetBCaterpillar]

Here's the link to the TSB website, with 4 pictures of the wreckage.
http://tsb.gc.ca/eng/medias-media/majeu ... 2c0005.asp

Pics courtesy of TSB.

I have been reading this thread with some interest. I am not involved in the avaition community in the depth that most of you are, but have certainly been "along for the ride" on alot of these NW ONT flights to places as this. When I say along for the ride I am a mechanic who has seen the best and the worst these places have to offer. Along with the avaition industry.... It hits home as I very well could have been on a flight such as this, with a 1800 lb transmission behind my head, light loading on fuel with a fuel stop at Pickle, with two guys up front finger flicking a PC 12 digital fuel guage, for accuracy? All things aside, there are a lot of qualified, safe operations, and with of all that has been said in these 14 some pages, I will give credit and Thanks to those who do their job properly!

Now to why I have decided to post, take notice of the small spruces frozen in the lake in the background of one of the pics that are in the above link. Usually these are the local way of delineating winter roads, trails etc. Could he have been lined up in low vis, seen the only decernalbe thing on a lake, the trees, and flared like it was the runway?

[Richard Cranium]

Hey captain. How do you know that this pilot was doing "the safest" option he had at the time? were you there? mabe you should hold back on your own comments!

It may comes as a shock to you, but generally as a group when things start going sideways, we default to the safest decision. Even those who get it all wrong though have the best intentions. I was simply giving the pilot the benefit of the doubt.
On another note:
Am I the only one that looks at the TSB pics and see's what looks like a feathered #1 prop? Also, it looks like the tip was bent as it hit the ground in the feathered position.
BTW it was a 7000lb Chieftan, should have been lots of room for gas.
Edit: Upon closer inspection, I imagine the blue tarp is covering a body.

Kind Regards,
Captain Richard Cranium

[cdnpilot77]

No, you are not the only one...its been brought up several times in this thread already.

[CpnCrunch]

Where's the "shame" in descending to sector, and calling it a day?

No shame in that at all... but you and I both know descending down to 3000 feet wouldn't have got the pilot anywhere that day and I would bet he knew that before he took off. The operator is worried about the cost of having a missed approach and returning, losing all that profit. Why not wait then? I stated this already... what's the rush? Leave an hour later or a day later. Company still receives there revenue and customers are happy. It's not a common occurrence for the customer to go to another operator because of a weather delay. Maintenance, etc. would be another thing. So, just wait it out and everyone wins.

Isn't it normal practice in the charter business to charge the client for the entire journey even if you do a missed approach and return home again? I'm not familiar with the industry myself, but a friend of mine who has flown about a thousand hours as a passenger in Manitoba says that the charter companies love it when the weather is crappy because it means they get to charge the customer TWICE. This would seem to be good for business and for safety - no pressure on the pilot to push the weather.

[cncpc]

Isn't it normal practice in the charter business to charge the client for the entire journey even if you do a missed approach and return home again? I'm not familiar with the industry myself, but a friend of mine who has flown about a thousand hours as a passenger in Manitoba says that the charter companies love it when the weather is crappy because it means they get to charge the customer TWICE. This would seem to be good for business and for safety - no pressure on the pilot to push the weather.

You tell them it is possible the flight can't be completed due to weather. It's on their nickel if they ask you to give it a try.

[Richard Cranium]

No, you are not the only one...its been brought up several times in this thread already.

Sorry, my bad for repetition.

Just to recap:
1. a possible failed engine
2. covered in freezing drizzle/rain
3. flying in a whiteout
4. no one within 100sm to help
5. The runway is obstructed, and covered in deep snow drifts due to the gian storm.

The popular opinion on avcanada thinks he was a cowboy and has dispatched the lynch mob to his house and place of work already b/c they think someone must have pushed him out the door due to previous bad behaviour on the company's part, and b/c they think everyone who works there breaks every law in the book, for sport. So sure of this as a group,that the collective intelligence feels he descended below 500ft off profile (right to the ground I might add), on a Mexican ILS approach....


Kind Regards,
Captain Richard Cranium

[cncpc]

On the TSB fotos #3 and #4, left wing, almost at the tip. Anyone else see anything on the leading edge or is it my overworked imagination.

Looks like a little bit of impact icing or rime. Hardly enough to bring a plane down (I think). Of course, the heat from the fire may have destroyed any sort of icing theory.

I do see quite a hole burned out of the left nacelle right behind the firewall, right where the exhaust would blowtorch through if there was a crack in the exhaust coming down from the turbo outlet, or if that donut was seriously defective. Could be just the fire though.

[Doc]

spaner, I brought one home on one, on a cold dark night many years ago. I don't recall if the boost was turned down or no, it's been a while, but we had five on board, and had burned an hour and a half out of full tanks. I flew it for about 95-100 miles that way. No big problem. We had an exhaust manifold burn a hole in itself (shop had installed a faulty manifold, quite a brewhaha over that one) and I didn't want to burn the cowling.

Cranium, wouldn't "defaulting to the safest to the safest decision....."be turning around and going home? When in doubt, chicken out is my motto. It's served me well.

[cncpc]

BTW it was a 7000lb Chieftan, should have been lots of room for gas. Why?
Edit: Upon closer inspection, I imagine the blue tarp is covering a body. Why would you imagine that?

Kind Regards,
Captain Richard Cranium