Small plane crash near Kenora.
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
- rookiepilot
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4403
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm
Small plane crash near Kenora.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba ... -1.5078634
Very little info. One person critical.
https://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/tsb-investi ... -1.4359160
J3 cub. Looks like quite a bit north of Kenora....
Very little info. One person critical.
https://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/tsb-investi ... -1.4359160
J3 cub. Looks like quite a bit north of Kenora....
-
- Rank 4
- Posts: 281
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 1:46 pm
Re: Small plane crash near Kenora.
So sorry to hear about this accident. A very experienced bush pilot and Cub driver tragically taken. My thoughts and sympathies are with his family, and best wishes for a full recovery for the injured.
-
- Rank 1
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:52 am
-
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1311
- Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 11:14 pm
- Location: The Gulag Archipelago
Re: Small plane crash near Kenora.
Local wisdom seems to point to a wing separation at the top of the strut. Far from official.
Wish I didn't know now, what I didn't know then.
-
- Rank 0
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Sat May 18, 2013 6:21 am
Re: Small plane crash near Kenora.
The passenger in the plane has now passed away also.
Such a terrible accident to happen to these people.
Such a terrible accident to happen to these people.
Re: Small plane crash near Kenora.
C-FLDQ, a privately registered Piper J3C-65 aircraft on skis, was conducting a VFR flight from
Minaki (CJA6), ON to Snowshoe Lake, ON with 1 pilot and 1 passenger on board. As the aircraft
was on a low-pass prior to the landing, the pilot lost control and the aircraft collided with the frozen
surface of the lake. The pilot sustained fatal injuries. The passenger sustained serious injuries,
however succumbed to his injuries 6 days later. TSB investigators deployed to the site.
Minaki (CJA6), ON to Snowshoe Lake, ON with 1 pilot and 1 passenger on board. As the aircraft
was on a low-pass prior to the landing, the pilot lost control and the aircraft collided with the frozen
surface of the lake. The pilot sustained fatal injuries. The passenger sustained serious injuries,
however succumbed to his injuries 6 days later. TSB investigators deployed to the site.
-
- Rank 1
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:52 am
Re: Small plane crash near Kenora.
It was the bottom of the wing strut that let go. Years of corrosion, a known issue with Piper wing struts. Piper wing struts and the fork ends have been subject to an AD for over 30 years. It appears this one was never was inspected.Illya Kuryakin wrote: ↑Sat Apr 06, 2019 6:25 pm Local wisdom seems to point to a wing separation at the top of the strut. Far from official.
This Cub is 69 years old and potentially the struts were original. This is a weak area for Piper strut braced wings and failure has devastating consequences.
I'm hearing that there are Engineers that are not doing this AD. The aircraft owner is responsible to ensuring all required maintenance is done on their aircraft. A 5 hour annual inspection out of the back of a pickup most likely is not keeping your airplane safe let alone maintained.
Re: Small plane crash near Kenora.
So if strut AD was not complied with, C of A was invalid, and likely had been for 3+ years? Gotta wonder about the mentality of some AME's running around signing off annuals on bug smashers like this without any due diligence..
Re: Small plane crash near Kenora.
Huh??? Why wonder about the AME's?Gotta wonder about the mentality of some AME's running around signing off annuals on bug smashers like this without any due diligence..
It is the owners responsibility to determine airworthiness. If he doesn't direct or want the AME to do any AD research - it's not his (the AME's) fault. AME's are only responsible for the work they do. If the owner comes along and says do the 100hr insp... that's what he does and that's what he signs in the logbook.
Sounds to me more like aircraft owners need to be aware of what they are responsible for.
Re: Small plane crash near Kenora.
I stand corrected. I found the relevant notation in CARS:boeingboy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:15 amHuh??? Why wonder about the AME's?Gotta wonder about the mentality of some AME's running around signing off annuals on bug smashers like this without any due diligence..
It is the owners responsibility to determine airworthiness. If he doesn't direct or want the AME to do any AD research - it's not his (the AME's) fault. AME's are only responsible for the work they do. If the owner comes along and says do the 100hr insp... that's what he does and that's what he signs in the logbook.
Sounds to me more like aircraft owners need to be aware of what they are responsible for.
i) Some inspection check sheets contain a check box with a statement to the effect that “...all applicable ADs have been complied with”. Such a statement transfers this responsibility to the AME signing the maintenance release for the inspection, even though it may be impractical for the AME to undertake the level of research required. Since compliance with ADs are the responsibility of the owner, AMEs should strike out this item on the inspection check sheets that they sign.
Last edited by BMLtech on Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Small plane crash near Kenora.
Nope, it's the owners responsibility.BMLtech wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:30 amPoint taken, however it's also part of the AME's responsibilty to verify AD compliance when signing off an annual inspection AFAIK.boeingboy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:15 amHuh??? Why wonder about the AME's?Gotta wonder about the mentality of some AME's running around signing off annuals on bug smashers like this without any due diligence..
It is the owners responsibility to determine airworthiness. If he doesn't direct or want the AME to do any AD research - it's not his (the AME's) fault. AME's are only responsible for the work they do. If the owner comes along and says do the 100hr insp... that's what he does and that's what he signs in the logbook.
Sounds to me more like aircraft owners need to be aware of what they are responsible for.
AME's are not required to spend 4 days checking compliance and applicability of AD's and SB's. You think your annual is expensive now, just imagine if AME's could charge for that book work.
Re: Small plane crash near Kenora.
It seems to me that back in the days before CARS, that it was the AME's responsibilty to check an verify AD compliance on an annual, but I agree that this is no longer the case. It's unfortunate that in this instance, the owner just didn't go out and purchase new struts for a couple hundred bucks each, which would have satisfied the applicable AD.
Re: Small plane crash near Kenora.
Here is the advisory....
http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/securite-s ... D1-A1.html
I wonder about these punch tests as well. I was flying an aircraft or an organization a few years ago which had tube corrosion issues. Initially, I was told that the aircraft was the nicest of its type in Canada and it did have a beautiful paint job. The frame was tubular steel and there are a lot of tubes in the frame. At some point, a technician happened to notice some rust coloured stain on the skin of the aircraft. Punch tests were done and significant corrosion was found that had to be replaced....... a major repair job resulting in a complete airframe teardown.
This case was different than the Piper crash in that there was no fault with the punch test on this aircraft. But it seems like the punch test is only useful for discovering weakening after there has been a lot of corrosion. How does a prospective buyer find out about the beginnings of corrosion. The punch test wont tell you that. And how many hundreds of locations need to be punched in order to find that small area of significant corrosion. An area 1 cm from a corrosion-weakened area could be strong and pass the punch test with the mechanic deciding that the impact area is good for an extended area beyond where the punch impact was made.
http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/securite-s ... D1-A1.html
I wonder about these punch tests as well. I was flying an aircraft or an organization a few years ago which had tube corrosion issues. Initially, I was told that the aircraft was the nicest of its type in Canada and it did have a beautiful paint job. The frame was tubular steel and there are a lot of tubes in the frame. At some point, a technician happened to notice some rust coloured stain on the skin of the aircraft. Punch tests were done and significant corrosion was found that had to be replaced....... a major repair job resulting in a complete airframe teardown.
This case was different than the Piper crash in that there was no fault with the punch test on this aircraft. But it seems like the punch test is only useful for discovering weakening after there has been a lot of corrosion. How does a prospective buyer find out about the beginnings of corrosion. The punch test wont tell you that. And how many hundreds of locations need to be punched in order to find that small area of significant corrosion. An area 1 cm from a corrosion-weakened area could be strong and pass the punch test with the mechanic deciding that the impact area is good for an extended area beyond where the punch impact was made.
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm
Re: Small plane crash near Kenora.
I have never met 1 owner that was proactive in their AD research or said that they would take care of the AD part and issue me the relevant information to complete an AD .AME's are not required to spend 4 days checking compliance and applicability of AD's and SB's. You think your annual is expensive now, just imagine if AME's could charge for that book work.
AD s really are in the realm of the AME BUT is the responsibility of the owner to research or to let the AME research the ADs
I also don't often come across ( unless it has been through a recent import) a comprehensive AD sheet (report) that lists ALL applicable and POSSIBLE ADS and answers ALL of them. When I come across this report, my time spent researching ADs is a few minutes, otherwise it may be hours +++
If the AD research is a mess, I will NOT trust anything and do a full AD report.
Another pet beef I have right now is Owner assisted annuals. I have allowed it in the past NO MORE ! I am working on a plane where the owner put the panels back on , I found about 30% of the screws loose and many were into rusted nutplates. NOW, I will not allow an owner to put panels back on , only remove them under supervision.
And the final pet beef is when an owner says that his hangar is bright and heated and he has tools and wants his annual done in HIS hangar ! To me, that is like working out of the back of a truck ! The other downside is that if an owner is less than stellar concerning payment, the A/C is in his possession and you loose $$$
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm
Re: Small plane crash near Kenora.
I cannot remember the last time I went to Canadian Tire and assisted the mechanic in changing and rotating the tires and doing the oil change , can you ?
Re: Small plane crash near Kenora.
Possibly, but they're out there, I'm one. All three of my planes have an inspection checklist specific to that airplane, and an annual AD search, with everything dispositioned. Then I tell the AME what action I require of him to rectify anything, then I seek his concurrence then the work is done. I, the owner, am responsible for AD research and compliance. I may, if I wish, and wish to pay, hire an AME to do that for me, but I would remain responsible for the AD search being correct and comprehensive. 'Seems to work okay for me.I have never met 1 owner that was proactive in their AD research or said that they would take care of the AD part and issue me the relevant information to complete an AD
Ah, no. However, when my Volkswagen was at the Volkswagen dealer last week for service, I asked permission to look under it while it was on the hoist, so I could inspect it's condition myself, and plan future (mainly rust prevention) maintenance. The VW mechanic seemed to agree with my observations and plan. I'm sure I'll have VW doing work I specify in the future.I cannot remember the last time I went to Canadian Tire and assisted the mechanic in changing and rotating the tires and doing the oil change , can you ?
The owner takes responsibility, and makes the required arrangements to assure airworthiness. 'Could be do some, hire some out, or hire it all out, but the owner remains responsible - or, very simply.... don't fly the plane!
- rookiepilot
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4403
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm
Re: Small plane crash near Kenora.
Corethermal,
It seems you have a very poor opinion of aircraft owner / operators.
On one hand you have never met an owner who took responsibility for ensuring AD compliance, on the other you seem to resent owners who want to be present and involved during maintenance.
This is very contradictory.
As an owner I have spent extensive time researching AD's and ensuring compliance using my AME, and hiring him, under my supervision, to cross check applicable AD's, including during an import.
In maintenance, I don't touch a tool, but I have been very involved and closely supervise every aspect of maintenance activities.
Both are my responsibility and my life.
After every annual I would circle the airport at 3000 feet for at least 20 minutes, to ensure proper operation of all components.
Your comparison of supervising of auto mechanic is beyond stupid, as I'm sure you're well aware of. If the car quits or starts on fire -- I stop and get out. If an AME for example doesn't tighten a clamp leading from the turbocharger and the exhaust hose it comes loose -- well that's not good. Several fatal accidents have been documented.
Trust, but verify is a motto I live by. I will continue to closely supervise certain maintenance aspects, if an AME doesn't like it, rest assured I will be finding a different AME.
I would consider re assessing your generalizations.
It seems you have a very poor opinion of aircraft owner / operators.
On one hand you have never met an owner who took responsibility for ensuring AD compliance, on the other you seem to resent owners who want to be present and involved during maintenance.
This is very contradictory.
As an owner I have spent extensive time researching AD's and ensuring compliance using my AME, and hiring him, under my supervision, to cross check applicable AD's, including during an import.
In maintenance, I don't touch a tool, but I have been very involved and closely supervise every aspect of maintenance activities.
Both are my responsibility and my life.
After every annual I would circle the airport at 3000 feet for at least 20 minutes, to ensure proper operation of all components.
Your comparison of supervising of auto mechanic is beyond stupid, as I'm sure you're well aware of. If the car quits or starts on fire -- I stop and get out. If an AME for example doesn't tighten a clamp leading from the turbocharger and the exhaust hose it comes loose -- well that's not good. Several fatal accidents have been documented.
Trust, but verify is a motto I live by. I will continue to closely supervise certain maintenance aspects, if an AME doesn't like it, rest assured I will be finding a different AME.
I would consider re assessing your generalizations.
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm
Re: Small plane crash near Kenora.
I very much appreciate when an owner can take the time and come in to look at every snag and discuss all the possibilities, it is time consuming and free ( I don't charge) but we all then have an understanding moving forward and also understand each persons responsibilities and what exactly is to be done. The owner should know that nothing needs to be done WRT defects but ANY airworthiness related or safety related defects that are not rectified are written up in the logs after the maint release ( TC wants ALL snags that are not rectified written up, very few operators do this , Skytek in Vernon BC does and I stand behind them 200% !Ah, no. However, when my Volkswagen was at the Volkswagen dealer last week for service, I asked permission to look under it while it was on the hoist, so I could inspect it's condition myself,
As an AME /Maintenance shop, I only have responsibility over the items described above the maint release and i like it that way! Less liability!
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm
Re: Small plane crash near Kenora.
Excellent and I agree!In maintenance, I don't touch a tool, but I have been very involved and closely supervise every aspect of maintenance activities.
Both are my responsibility and my life.
If what you say by closely supervise you mean that you look over the shoulder or you go and do an independent check, with torque wrench in hand than you aught to get another AME or AMO !!!Trust, but verify is a motto I live by. I will continue to closely supervise certain maintenance aspects, if an AME doesn't like it, rest assured I will be finding a different AME.
Doing a test flight over the airport for 20-40 min is WISE. The AME or the AMO should be able to do this prior to releasing the A/C to you ! ( And be covered by insurance)
Working on a 60 yr old plane, even LOOKING at a wire bundle causes individual wires to commit suicide and self destruct ! and so a comprehensive post annual run-up and IDEALLY a test flight should be in the realm of the person(s) doing the annual BEFORE it is released to the customer!
IF there are flight issues prior to the annual. a pre-annual test flight is also a needed item. I perceive that many amo s/ AMEs are shy of having the plane flown !!!