Conair loses fireboss pilot ok

[oldncold]

cranbrook bc news reported wed .conair air amphib fire boss had sudden engine failure , pilot did a great job putting the plane down without serious injury to himself in steep terrain. plane is totalled .

[J31]

CRANBROOK, B.C. - A water-bomber aircraft involved in firefighting efforts in British Columbia made a forced landing Tuesday.

BC Wildfire Service executive director Ian Meier issued a statement late Tuesday regarding the landing in the Southeast Fire Centre.

Meier said the contracted Conair 802 Air Tractor Fireboss Skimmer aircraft experienced an engine failure during operations on the Connell Ridge wildfire, near Cranbrook.

He said the forced landing was successful, and the pilot was taken to hospital for medical assessment.

The statement said the BC Wildfire Service is providing all possible assistance to the pilot and Conair, and more information will be provided when it is available.

The Connell Ridge wildfire currently covers about 150 hectares.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 3, 2022.

https://infotel.ca/newsitem/water-bombe ... ok/it93185

[pelmet]

C-FFQS, a Conair Group Incorporated Air Tractor AT-802A on amphibious floats, was conducting
forest fire fighting operations from the Canadian Rockies International Airport (CYXC), BC, with 1
crew member on board. After releasing his payload on the Connell Ridge wildfire, the pilot applied
power for the climb out but the engine power rolled back to idle. The pilot selected the Emergency
Power Lever but no more power was produced. The pilot selected an area for a forced approach
and landed in a logged area with newly planted trees. The pilot sustained minor injuries and was
taken by helicopter to receive medical aid. There was no post impact fire. The aircraft was
substantially damaged.

[Mick G]

I'm afraid this won't be the last time this happens. It will only take time before someone is killed. Using a single engine aircraft in a low level dangerous environment over forested areas is a recipe for disaster. This is why aerial firefighting should always be from a multi engine platform. These fireboss toys should be sidelined

[RatherBeFlying]

It's going to be a while before single engine firefighter aircraft crashes catch up to the multi engine toll.

[PilotDAR]

Using a single engine aircraft in a low level dangerous environment over forested areas is a recipe for disaster.

Is an engine failure during firefighting operations a common cause of accidents? I don't know - asking...

If an engine failure is not the cause of most accidents, probably having more than one is more a complication than a solution....

[cncpc]

Using a single engine aircraft in a low level dangerous environment over forested areas is a recipe for disaster.

No, it's not.

I have hundreds of hours in single engine aircraft right down on the deck counting squirrels and God knows what else mapping fires for BCFS. Back in the day, we complicated that having the pilot window open and using the throttle hand to throw rolls of adding machine tape out the window from 50 feet above treetops to mark fires, and the path in from the nearest road. Nothing happened.

From the Oxford dictionary definition of "recipe for disaster"...

"be extremely likely to have unfortunate consequences"

That likelihood is directly correlated to the likelihood of a single engine failure. You could hardly say that is extremely likely. Especially in a turboprop.

I'm not big on the Fireboss myself as a firefighting aircraft. But, if I was in an aircraft without power and nothing but trees below, that's the very boy for me. We want to bear in mind that the Fireboss has huge areas of BC that it can simply set down on with the floats in any kind of emergency.

[Mick G]

Using a single engine aircraft in a low level dangerous environment over forested areas is a recipe for disaster.

No, it's not.

I have hundreds of hours in single engine aircraft right down on the deck counting squirrels and God knows what else mapping fires for BCFS. Back in the day, we complicated that having the pilot window open and using the throttle hand to throw rolls of adding machine tape out the window from 50 feet above treetops to mark fires, and the path in from the nearest road. Nothing happened.

From the Oxford dictionary definition of "recipe for disaster"...

"be extremely likely to have unfortunate consequences"

That likelihood is directly correlated to the likelihood of a single engine failure. You could hardly say that is extremely likely. Especially in a turboprop.

I'm not big on the Fireboss myself as a firefighting aircraft. But, if I was in an aircraft without power and nothing but trees below, that's the very boy for me. We want to bear in mind that the Fireboss has huge areas of BC that it can simply set down on with the floats in any kind of emergency.

You are just lucky, that's all. If you ever have lost an engine in a single engine aircraft, your point of view would quickly change. I found myself in this situation 25 years ago and was fortunate to be Able to trade altitude for distance/glide. I'm still here to speak about it. Try that over forested terrain at 500 or 1000 feet and your options become very few. Turboprops are very reliable, but through time, we will see more occurances. Sad but true. The other fellow commented that it will take awhile to get the single engine up to the same loss rate of multi, granted it will take time, but single engine is new to the game relatively speaking as compared to multi's

[Big Pistons Forever]

There have been at least 3 low altitude engine failures in 802’s. Nobody killed….yet

Bottom line is in aerial work you only risk killing pilots, not passengers so that’s OK.

[Pacqing]

No need to say that the PT6 are reliable as we all know that. The 802 has the -67 large series and the only issue I recall is coking of bearings if a proper cool down run isn't done. I should imagine Pratt has done the analysis of the other 2 engine failures on this 802 model. Perhaps there is a reason for the failure.

[iflyforpie]

Using a single engine aircraft in a low level dangerous environment over forested areas is a recipe for disaster.

No, it's not.

I have hundreds of hours in single engine aircraft right down on the deck counting squirrels and God knows what else mapping fires for BCFS. Back in the day, we complicated that having the pilot window open and using the throttle hand to throw rolls of adding machine tape out the window from 50 feet above treetops to mark fires, and the path in from the nearest road. Nothing happened.

From the Oxford dictionary definition of "recipe for disaster"...

"be extremely likely to have unfortunate consequences"

That likelihood is directly correlated to the likelihood of a single engine failure. You could hardly say that is extremely likely. Especially in a turboprop.

I'm not big on the Fireboss myself as a firefighting aircraft. But, if I was in an aircraft without power and nothing but trees below, that's the very boy for me. We want to bear in mind that the Fireboss has huge areas of BC that it can simply set down on with the floats in any kind of emergency.

You are just lucky, that's all. If you ever have lost an engine in a single engine aircraft, your point of view would quickly change. I found myself in this situation 25 years ago and was fortunate to be Able to trade altitude for distance/glide. I'm still here to speak about it. Try that over forested terrain at 500 or 1000 feet and your options become very few. Turboprops are very reliable, but through time, we will see more occurances. Sad but true. The other fellow commented that it will take awhile to get the single engine up to the same loss rate of multi, granted it will take time, but single engine is new to the game relatively speaking as compared to multi's

I have lost a single engine in the mountains at less than 1000 feet from terrain. I’ve known more than a few people who have—both who I flew with and who’s planes I repaired from the aftermath. They all walked away and most made it to a paved runway… …as did I. Interesting thing is.. …there’s usually a direction terrain goes downhill, and prudent mountain flying says you always fly your aircraft to be positioned to take advantage of it. You never do a bomb run going up hill.

Look at this winner. 4 engines… …and if he lost one of them he’d be fucked.

https://youtu.be/O2KCYhULWZ8

Thing is, suppression is the very visible part of firefighting operations. Detection and mapping are done daily primarily with single engine piston aircraft low level in the BC mountains?, not so much. They tried years ago to mandate twin engine aircraft for safety reasons until it was pointed out that nearly every fatal accident for detection and mapping was in a twin engine aircraft. Lots from fuel mismanagement and a few from CFIT due to the higher stall speeds and larger turn radius of twins.

Sure.. up in the flight levels, over the ocean, twins are the way to go. But low level heavily loaded with almost no time to react? Ever do a V1 cut out of Aspen ISA +20 on Runway 15? I have. I made it… just. For most the results would be the same single or twin… …with the single more likely saving everyone on board rather plowing in at a higher stall speed or doing a Vmc roll.

Maybe use Runway 33 like most people do? Maybe single engine you make the same sorts of decisions to reduce your risks in the event of engine failure.

[cncpc]

I have lost a single engine in the mountains at less than 1000 feet from terrain. I’ve known more than a few people who have—both who I flew with and who’s planes I repaired from the aftermath. They all walked away and most made it to a paved runway… …as did I. Interesting thing is.. …there’s usually a direction terrain goes downhill, and prudent mountain flying says you always fly your aircraft to be positioned to take advantage of it. You never do a bomb run going up hill.

Thing is, suppression is the very visible part of firefighting operations. Detection and mapping are done daily primarily with single engine piston aircraft low level in the BC mountains?, not so much. They tried years ago to mandate twin engine aircraft for safety reasons until it was pointed out that nearly every fatal accident for detection and mapping was in a twin engine aircraft. Lots from fuel mismanagement and a few from CFIT due to the higher stall speeds and larger turn radius of twins.

Yep on the downhill. If there is water running in the valley, it's running to more water and it is always going downhill. If you can get a power off descent rate lower than the descent rate of the valley floor, you will eventually make it to water and a splash. I'm not sure everybody has thought that bit out. Very aware of it there in the Purcells and Monashee doing fires and bug mapping.

Last I flew detection, the Forest Service mandated twins in the Koots, and the operator response was Skymasters. I think Thierry is doing them in a 172 now. Last I heard anyway. Always flew the Cutlass out in the Chilcotin and Cariboo when I worked with Gideon.

By mapping do you mean "mapping" the fire, or bug mapping Low was sometimes difficult if the fire was in a hanging canyon wall, that sort of thing, and I eventually stopped being intensely interested in what "fuel" there was down there. I limited low level looksees to pretty flat bench terrain, and just gave them the key details. Bug mapping was always at least 2000 AGL.

[cncpc]

You are just lucky, that's all. If you ever have lost an engine in a single engine aircraft, your point of view would quickly change. I found myself in this situation 25 years ago and was fortunate to be Able to trade altitude for distance/glide. I'm still here to speak about it. Try that over forested terrain at 500 or 1000 feet and your options become very few. Turboprops are very reliable, but through time, we will see more occurances. Sad but true. The other fellow commented that it will take awhile to get the single engine up to the same loss rate of multi, granted it will take time, but single engine is new to the game relatively speaking as compared to multi's

I'm not just lucky. although luck never hurts. I've had one engine failure in a real single engine airplane, and another had to be shut down in one those shitboxes that for some reason is called a Challenger. That shapes my point of view, it doesn't quickly change it. I've had power losses and failures in 9 or 10 twins.

I've spent most of my flying career as a mountain pilot in BC, and a fair bit on the US west coast and into Nevada. Single engine aircraft, big rocks and trees. Never a good place for an engine failure. When the bell rings, you gotta answer. Luck isn't gonna answer for you.

If you believe you are gonna die, and kill all your passengers if an engine quits... if it does, you probably will.

[iflyforpie]

By mapping do you mean "mapping" the fire, or bug mapping Low was sometimes difficult if the fire was in a hanging canyon wall, that sort of thing, and I eventually stopped being intensely interested in what "fuel" there was down there. I limited low level looksees to pretty flat bench terrain, and just gave them the key details. Bug mapping was always at least 2000 AGL.

Bug mapping. Yes the productive part of it was 2000 feet or more but ridge crossings of which there was one every 10-15 minutes or so to do things efficiently (up one side drainage, down the next) was 500 AGL or less at times.

Fire? Yeah as soon as they have the coordinates they have the fuel type and everything else thanks to the multi layer maps they have from satellite, overview, and detail surveys. Why we wasted so much time and flew so low to get all of that I don’t know.

The old guard with adding machine tape still onboard I guess. One of which I remember actively tried to push ridge crossings as low as possible and trained observers to critique new pilots who didn’t fly low enough. He added himself to the BC fire detection multi engine casualty list about a decade ago on one ridge he didn’t make it over.

[Capt. Underpants]

TSB final report is out. Pretty disappointing that they couldn't figure out why the engine rolled back.

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repo ... p0067.html

If fighting fire in a single is a "recipe for disaster", then so is virtually every other use of single engined aircraft. At some point, virtually every flight in a single (unless one is flying in the prairies) puts the pilot in a position of having to act very quickly and correctly if he loses the stove at a low altitude.

[digits_]

If fighting fire in a single is a "recipe for disaster", then so is virtually every other use of single engined aircraft. At some point, virtually every flight in a single (unless one is flying in the prairies) puts the pilot in a position of having to act very quickly and correctly if he loses the stove at a low altitude.

The other single engine aircraft don't spend a significant amount of time flying around at 500 ft or below over treed areas (as that's where the fire is) or around/over/through an actual bloody wildfire...

The only reason a single engine fireboss is used is because an accountant has determined it's cheaper than its multi engine counterparts. It's not because they are more capable. They aren't, there are alternatives for the majority of the work they do.

[goingnowherefast]

Good job to the pilot!

[digits_]

TSB final report is out. Pretty disappointing that they couldn't figure out why the engine rolled back.

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repo ... p0067.html

From the report:

At approximately 1919, immediately following the 7th water drop of the 2nd flight, the occurrence pilot advanced the power lever forward to increase engine power, and the aircraft experienced a 2-second reduction of power. The power reduction may not have been discernible to the pilotFootnote6. The engine power returned and the aircraft operated normally. The pilot continued with the firefighting mission.

Is it common for this to happen that it would basically be ignored and the flight be continued?

The DAAM unit on board the aircraft recorded a maximum of 3.8g during the forced landing sequence.

That's seriously impressive for a landing in trees!

[Donald]

TSB final report is out. Pretty disappointing that they couldn't figure out why the engine rolled back.

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repo ... p0067.html

From the report:

At approximately 1919, immediately following the 7th water drop of the 2nd flight, the occurrence pilot advanced the power lever forward to increase engine power, and the aircraft experienced a 2-second reduction of power. The power reduction may not have been discernible to the pilotFootnote6. The engine power returned and the aircraft operated normally. The pilot continued with the firefighting mission.

Is it common for this to happen that it would basically be ignored and the flight be continued?

The DAAM unit on board the aircraft recorded a maximum of 3.8g during the forced landing sequence.

That's seriously impressive for a landing in trees!

I would infer that the pilot was not aware of the momentary power interruption, and the investigators only discovered it through the on-board diagnostics.

[cncpc]

I have to say that this is one of the best threads I've spent any time in.

Entirely sensible people.

[Capt. Underpants]

The other single engine aircraft don't spend a significant amount of time flying around at 500 ft or below over treed areas (as that's where the fire is) or around/over/through an actual bloody wildfire...

The only reason a single engine fireboss is used is because an accountant has determined it's cheaper than its multi engine counterparts. It's not because they are more capable. They aren't, there are alternatives for the majority of the work they do.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've never spent any time doing bush flying, or operating a single engine aircraft out of municipal airports that are surrounded by developed areas. Neither of those scenarios offers more in the way of places to do a forced landing than this pilot had on the day. So if fighting a fire in a FireBoss is unacceptably dangerous, then so are those other types of SE ops. Also, those FireBosses don't tool around below 500' AGL for hours on end. Most of a flight is spent well above 1000' AGL. They are at low altitudes near the fire when they leave the bombing circuit and fly the drop run, just like when you leave the circuit to land at an airport. So if one of them is risky to the point of being unacceptable, then all of them are.

Talk to the people who run Alberta Wildfire Management. They will disagree with you quite strongly regarding effectiveness. They own four CL215Ts and they also contract a group of four FireBosses. They'll tell you there is little discernable difference in effectiveness between the two groups, but a quick look at the numbers shows the cost of the 215s per gallon of water delivered is significantly higher.

[digits_]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've never spent any time doing bush flying, or operating a single engine aircraft out of municipal airports that are surrounded by developed areas. Neither of those scenarios offers more in the way of places to do a forced landing than this pilot had on the day. So if fighting a fire in a FireBoss is unacceptably dangerous, then so are those other types of SE ops. Also, those FireBosses don't tool around below 500' AGL for hours on end. Most of a flight is spent well above 1000' AGL. They are at low altitudes near the fire when they leave the bombing circuit and fly the drop run, just like when you leave the circuit to land at an airport. So if one of them is risky to the point of being unacceptable, then all of them are.

It depends. 'all of them are' is a bit of a broad statement, but I do think it's silly there are still so many single engine aircraft operations out there when there are multi engine alternatives.

Most SE commercial ops (other than flight schools) don't perform multiple landings/scoops/takeoffs per hour. Some do, most don't. Most fire aircraft do these things. Spending more time at low altitude increases risk. And if it's a big fire, visibility in smoke comes into play as well, again limiting your options if something happens close to the fire. Lots of traffic to be aware of as well. Most of those factors are not present in other operations.

Is the risk acceptable? Probably, pilots still accept the jobs. But why accept this extra risk when there are better (albeit possibly more expensive) options? If money is the only reason, I don't think that's a good enough one.

Here's another question: what percentage of fireboss pilots would prefer to fly a multi engine aircraft to perform the same job?

Talk to the people who run Alberta Wildfire Management. They will disagree with you quite strongly regarding effectiveness. They own four CL215Ts and they also contract a group of four FireBosses. They'll tell you there is little discernable difference in effectiveness between the two groups, but a quick look at the numbers shows the cost of the 215s per gallon of water delivered is significantly higher.

As I wrote:

The only reason a single engine fireboss is used is because an accountant has determined it's cheaper than its multi engine counterparts. It's not because they are more capable. They aren't, there are alternatives for the majority of the work they do.

[Capt. Underpants]

At the end of the day it all comes down to acceptable levels of risk. Each of us has our perception of risk but most of us don't sit around the table and actually look at the risk from a statistical perspective. A key component to the equation is survivability - a fact which the TSB mentions in this report as contributing to the safe outcome for the pilot. I've never flown an Air Tractor but I am very familiar with how they are built - especially in the cockpit. Think NASCAR roll cages for airplanes. Most firefighting accidents have nothing to do with engine failures - they're usually related to some type of CFIT event. When it comes to surviving a CFIT crash, the Air Tractor / FireBoss offers way better protection to the crew than a 215, but most of those CFIT's wouldn't be survivable in a Sherman tank, never mind an airplane.

[digits_]

At the end of the day it all comes down to acceptable levels of risk. Each of us has our perception of risk but most of us don't sit around the table and actually look at the risk from a statistical perspective. A key component to the equation is survivability - a fact which the TSB mentions in this report as contributing to the safe outcome for the pilot. I've never flown an Air Tractor but I am very familiar with how they are built - especially in the cockpit. Think NASCAR roll cages for airplanes. Most firefighting accidents have nothing to do with engine failures - they're usually related to some type of CFIT event. When it comes to surviving a CFIT crash, the Air Tractor / FireBoss offers way better protection to the crew than a 215, but most of those CFIT's wouldn't be survivable in a Sherman tank, never mind an airplane.

Fair, but largely irrelevant. This crash *was* caused by an engine failure, which would have been preventable in a twin. And having a single engine does *not* offer any additional protection against CFIT.

[goingnowherefast]

I'd rather be in a fireboss than bucketing in a single engine helicopter.

I'm going to side with Capt. Underpants. Air Tractors are designed to be survivable when shit goes sideways. Engine failures do happen, but they're exceeding rare for the PT6. If out fighting fires, there's may more things I'm worried about before I'm stressing over a PT6 quitting.
CFIT and mid-air; both happen with more frequency than engine failures.

Would two engines be better? Absolutely, but in the mean time, there's nothing wrong with Air Tractor ruggedness, survivability and one PT6.

To drive the point home, the TSB did NOT make the recommendation of using multi-engine aircraft in this report. Even the TSB deemed it an acceptable level of risk.