Bird dog down in Territories?

[cncpc]

Just saw something in a Smith feed about a serious incident involving a bird dog.

[broken_slinky]

NWT Fire posted this earlier:
https://www.facebook.com/NWTFireinfo/po ... 934173958/

[shamrock104]

Hear its a Buffalo machine with three crew.

[cncpc]

Hear its a Buffalo machine with three crew.

Now confirming there are no survivors.

[cncpc]

Hear its a Buffalo machine with three crew.

Now confirming there are no survivors.

Spoke with a friend from Smith. Bird dog officer and the other non flying are from the town. One was her first junior high boyfriend.

[Daniel Cooper]

My condolences to the families of the deceased and their colleagues at Buffalo. They do the most dangerous job in Canadian aviation and deserve a lot of respect for it.

[pelmet]

Confirmation that it was during firefighting ops....

C-FNRP, a Rockwell International 690C, was operating as an air attack/bird dog flight originating
out of Fort Simpson Airport (CYFS), NT, with 1 pilot and 2 crew on board. While providing tactical
support for forest fire fighting 28 NM west of CYFS, the aircraft collided with terrain. The aircraft
was destroyed and all 3 occupants were fatally injured.

....from TSB.

[Brumbymike]

"the aircraft collided with terrain." From that it could be CFIT but all aircraft accidents usually end with it colliding with terrain. Any more information than that? Is all the aircraft in the same place? Twin commander issued an SB (244) in the last year where most of the firefighting aircraft inspected in the US had cracks in the tail. There are 40 or so flying that mission between the US and Canada.

[pelmet]

"Investigators with the TSB arrived on-site on June 26 to discover the wreckage was missing its left wing and tail section, including the horizontal and vertical stabilizers.

Jonathan Lee, the TSB's regional manager for western Canada, told CBC's The Trailbreaker on Monday that it was an "indication of an in-flight breakup."

A mid-air breakup like that suggests two possible causes, Lee said.

"Number one is the ultimate airload on the aircraft exceeded what it could hold or designed to withstand," he said — in other words, that the plane was too heavy.

"The other is the materials in the aircraft are fatigued due to corrosion or age.""

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/in ... fc7f1e377c

[cncpc]

"Number one is the ultimate airload on the aircraft exceeded what it could hold or designed to withstand," he said — in other words, that the plane was too heavy.


https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/in ... fc7f1e377c

I'm not sure that's the best word choice. I doubt the plane was too heavy. Designed for eight, I think it is. It had three on board. It may have exceeded its max g loading. Also not sure that explains two different structures coming off. Unless enroute, these aircraft operate close to the ground, probably not much more than 1000 agl when directing the tanker run. Hard to imagine the parts are any great distance from each other. Depending on smoke in the area, it may be difficult to find them.

Some models of Commanders did have serious spar corrosion issues. There was a mod for strapping dodgy spars.

[co-joe]

The missing wing and tail section have still not been located, despite several hours of searching along the flight path, Lee said.

OK that's not a good sign.

[Pacqing]

I read the pilot was Norman Williams. Was this Ken Williams?

[cncpc]

Some models of Commanders did have serious spar corrosion issues. There was a mod for strapping dodgy spars.

This is an AI overview on corrosion issues in the 690 and FAA directives that are out there.

Key FAA Directives & Guidelines

AD 2009-25-05: Mandates inspections between the mating surfaces of the upper wing skin and the engine mount beam support straps for any signs of corrosion. It requires replacing the upper steel straps with improved, redesigned parts and modifying both wings to detect and correct engine mount beam support strap failures.

AD 94-04-14: Supersedes previous ADs to require repetitive inspections of the wing front spar lower cap (spar cap) for corrosion. It dictates replacing the spar cap if corrosion exceeds established acceptable limits.

AD 2025-24-51 (Proposed AD / Docket FAA-2025-3438): Targets widespread fatigue and environmental damage. This proposed directive requires detailed inspections for cracks, corrosion, and loose/elongated hardware at critical fuselage stations (including FS 386, 409, and 429) and the vertical stabilizer.

General Corrosion Directives: Standard FAA guidelines such as FAA Advisory Circular AC 43-4B provide the baseline techniques and industry practices acceptable to the Administrator for identifying, preventing, and repairing corrosive attacks.

[cncpc]

And...

Fuselage Station 429 (FS 429) on an Aero Commander 690 is located in the aft fuselage and empennage (tail) section, 429 inches behind the aircraft's designated reference datum.Because it sits near the base of the vertical stabilizer, this location is heavily scrutinized during structural inspections for cracking or fatigue in the aft frames, diagonal braces, and tail tie-down hardware.

For example, maintenance directives specifically mandate detailed visual or eddy current inspections of Fuselage Stations 386, 409, and 429 where the empennage structure attaches. Exact positioning can vary by a fraction of an inch based on whether the aircraft is a short-body or long-body variant of the 690 series.

[oldncold]

This may of changed from my days , but when running in to mark for tankers. It was done with 2 runs first one at 500 agl and 2nd at 150ft agl you are totally focused and with2- 3 vhf n a fm freq yacking in you ear. Very busy.

It is totally plausible that they lost visual ground contact . In the smoke n sh.., only to regain it in oh my god moment with steeply rising terrain , pulled for all they had to avoid the hill or mountain then exceeded the structral limits had the inflight structural breakup.. sincere condolences. To the families n friends .

[digits_]

It might not have been a hard pull up just for terrain, but normal ops. The G limits on the commanders are quite low. Not really lower than other aircraft types, but for a job where you are often making steep turns and pulling up a bit more sporty than in other operations, it is quite low.

Note that I'm not claiming that hard pull ups are required for the job, but they do happen. G force is also something that's very hard to judge, unless you have an instrument on board. As you do it more frequently, your body gets used to it, and what felt like 2g at the beginning of the season, could easily be 3g at the end of the season. If you combine that with additional turbulence and possibly multiple g cycles during one flight, it's very easy to exceed the paper limits.

I'm not sure how easy it is to find signs of overstressing the airframe. This also doesn't mean that the accident crew bore any responsibility whatsoever, these issues can show up many flights after the actual overstress event.

Every aircraft involved in firefighting should have a non resettable G meter on board IMO.

[Rquick]

I read the pilot was Norman Williams. Was this Ken Williams?

Where did you read this information?

No- not KW

[Daniel Cooper]

Inflight break up is everyone's worst nightmare.

probably not much more than 1000 agl when directing the tanker run

It's actually much less not more.
Is it possible the aircraft hit a single tree that was significantly taller than the surrounding trees? I believe they call it a "snag" or something like that. It's one of the jobs of the birddog to locate these trees and advise the bomber pilot of them so they don't hit them on their run.

[cncpc]

Inflight break up is everyone's worst nightmare.

probably not much more than 1000 agl when directing the tanker run

It's actually much less not more.
Is it possible the aircraft hit a single tree that was significantly taller than the surrounding trees? I believe they call it a "snag" or something like that. It's one of the jobs of the birddog to locate these trees and advise the bomber pilot of them so they don't hit them on their run.

Inflight break up is everyone's worst nightmare.

probably not much more than 1000 agl when directing the tanker run

It's actually much less not more.
Is it possible the aircraft hit a single tree that was significantly taller than the surrounding trees? I believe they call it a "snag" or something like that. It's one of the jobs of the birddog to locate these trees and advise the bomber pilot of them so they don't hit them on their run.

That is certainly possible in a general sense. I think most air tanker/bird dog accidents start with hitting one tree. That scenario also can support a theory of contact at wingtip, the wing shears and a powerful yaw results, overcomes the fin structure and it goes. But in that scenario, the whole airplane is at the site.

I think that proposed AD issued in 2025 could be a factor when we know all or most of the facts. It can be seen that the corrosion issue was first located in the wing spar, caps, etc. That would be the 1985 AD. Then there was talk of corrosion being elsewhere and specifically threatening the vertical fin. That would be the 2009 AD. Finally, last year, a proposed AD was issued. That detailed an increasing number of areas of corrosion, including the pressure web at the back, and some fuselage station numbers that relate to the attach points of the vertical fin.

A proposed AD does not have the force of law. It is part of the notice of proposed rulemaking that the FAA has. Operators have the opportunity to question the AD, including the compliance measures required, and suggest alternate wordings, etc. They also have the option of getting a jump on the issue, and implementing the fixes voluntarily. But, nobody is in violation of any maintenance regs for not voluntarily doing the work stated in the proposed AD. I'd think that is work that wouldn't come cheap.

The threats to AC 690 aircraft that the AD forecasts are one of the explanations for this sad accident. The AD seeks to reduce risk of the vertical fin departing, and with it the rest of the tail. If the tail goes, the aircraft will bunt and in a short time one or both wings will separate. If I remember correctly, that was the scenario when that Metro went in in the North Shore mountains about 10 years ago...the courier aircraft heading for the Cariboo. Both wings handclapped in a very steep dive. Not sure if tail separation was an initiator of that sequence.

The missing parts will be found. We don't need to speculate on the cause. The tail and a wing came off. That caused the accident. The TSB will tell us why the tail and the wing came off. I doubt that the cause will be pilot error, or operator fault. But, it is a healthy and instructive thing to talk about this accident here. It will surely provoke thought and provide a learning experience.

[cncpc]

A bit more from the FAA background given in the Docket...

"Background

The FAA received reports of fatigue cracking throughout the fuselage and vertical stabilizer's structural components on Twin Commander Model 685, 690, 690A, 690B, 690C, 690D, 695, and 695A airplanes. The fatigue cracking was found in areas with insufficient access for inspections, which led to undetected crack development. Specifically, cracking was observed at FS 409, the vertical stabilizer's aft spar, the horizontal stabilizer's forward spar, and the vertical stabilizer skin.

AD 95-13-02, Amendment 39-9283 (60 FR 32583, June 23, 1995) (AD 95-13-02) was issued to address cracking in the vertical stabilizer. This AD requires initially inspecting the vertical stabilizer for cracks, modifying any cracked vertical stabilizer, and, if not cracked, either repetitively inspecting or modifying the vertical stabilizer, and allowed for terminating action through modification or repair. Since the issuance of AD 95-13-02, continued cracking has been observed at FS 409. These findings show that previously implemented modifications in AD 95-13-02 did not provide an effective terminating action, along with the detection of additional cracking at FS 386 and FS 429 during later inspections. FS 386 and FS 429, where cracks were recently found, were not part of the inspections required by AD 95-13-02. Therefore, this proposed AD, while not superseding AD 95-13-02, addresses continued cracking in FS 409, including areas adjacent to prior repairs, by requiring inspections around repaired members, thereby complementing the ongoing requirements of AD 95-13-02.

The FAA is proposing this AD to prevent the failure of the aft fuselage or empennage structural members. The unsafe conditions, if not addressed, could result in structural failure of the empennage, which could lead to loss of control of the airplane."

[rigpiggy]

Inflight break up is everyone's worst nightmare.

probably not much more than 1000 agl when directing the tanker run

It's actually much less not more.
Is it possible the aircraft hit a single tree that was significantly taller than the surrounding trees? I believe they call it a "snag" or something like that. It's one of the jobs of the birddog to locate these trees and advise the bomber pilot of them so they don't hit them on their run.

Inflight break up is everyone's worst nightmare.

probably not much more than 1000 agl when directing the tanker run

It's actually much less not more.
Is it possible the aircraft hit a single tree that was significantly taller than the surrounding trees? I believe they call it a "snag" or something like that. It's one of the jobs of the birddog to locate these trees and advise the bomber pilot of them so they don't hit them on their run.

That is certainly possible in a general sense. I think most air tanker/bird dog accidents start with hitting one tree. That scenario also can support a theory of contact at wingtip, the wing shears and a powerful yaw results, overcomes the fin structure and it goes. But in that scenario, the whole airplane is at the site.

I think that proposed AD issued in 2025 could be a factor when we know all or most of the facts. It can be seen that the corrosion issue was first located in the wing spar, caps, etc. That would be the 1985 AD. Then there was talk of corrosion being elsewhere and specifically threatening the vertical fin. That would be the 2009 AD. Finally, last year, a proposed AD was issued. That detailed an increasing number of areas of corrosion, including the pressure web at the back, and some fuselage station numbers that relate to the attach points of the vertical fin.

A proposed AD does not have the force of law. It is part of the notice of proposed rulemaking that the FAA has. Operators have the opportunity to question the AD, including the compliance measures required, and suggest alternate wordings, etc. They also have the option of getting a jump on the issue, and implementing the fixes voluntarily. But, nobody is in violation of any maintenance regs for not voluntarily doing the work stated in the proposed AD. I'd think that is work that wouldn't come cheap.

The threats to AC 690 aircraft that the AD forecasts are one of the explanations for this sad accident. The AD seeks to reduce risk of the vertical fin departing, and with it the rest of the tail. If the tail goes, the aircraft will bunt and in a short time one or both wings will separate. If I remember correctly, that was the scenario when that Metro went in in the North Shore mountains about 10 years ago...the courier aircraft heading for the Cariboo. Both wings handclapped in a very steep dive. Not sure if tail separation was an initiator of that sequence.

The missing parts will be found. We don't need to speculate on the cause. The tail and a wing came off. That caused the accident. The TSB will tell us why the tail and the wing came off. I doubt that the cause will be pilot error, or operator fault. But, it is a healthy and instructive thing to talk about this accident here. It will surely provoke thought and provide a learning experience.

Wrt the Carson air metro, the tail failed down(I have a photo of the wreckage) that led do the bunt and the wings then failed downward. I absolutely blame TC for this as the M2

[dieselbro]

Re: Carson Air Metro over the North Shore

In-flight breakup was the result and the TSB didn’t directly cite that as a cause of the accident. While we can draw parallels as to how airplanes may separate in flight, I feel that’s where the similarities end.

This is a very tragic loss of life for heroes who went out that day to fight fires for us. Sincere condolences, and I hope we can get answers soon so that this doesn’t happen again.

The investigation determined that, during aircraft operation at a speed of 180 knots true airspeed, this centre of gravity required a horizontal stabilizer trim position approaching the nose-down range limit of the system.

The investigation determined that, at the time of the crash, the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator was positioned to its maximum extension, resulting in a full aircraft nose-down trim setting.

It was determined that no mechanical failure or malfunction of the actuator had occurred before the breakup.

Metallurgical examination of the upper-attachment mounts of the actuator revealed evidence of stress corrosion cracking. It was determined that these fittings had reduced strength due to the cracking, which likely contributed to their failure during the aircraft's break-up sequence. However, there was no evidence that these mounts failed before the breakup of the aircraft or factored into the rapid descent.

The analysis section of this report will explore 3 possible theories, based on information obtained during the investigation, that would explain the events and unsafe conditions that may have played a role in this occurrence: a pitot system blockage, pilot incapacitation, and an intentional act.

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repo ... p0081.html

[Dry Guy]

Wrt the Carson air metro, the tail failed down(I have a photo of the wreckage) that led do the bunt and the wings then failed downward. I absolutely blame TC for this as the M2

Transport Canada was the AME for Carson Air? Wasn't the pilot heavily intoxicated?

[cncpc]

Wrt the Carson air metro, the tail failed down(I have a photo of the wreckage) that led do the bunt and the wings then failed downward. I absolutely blame TC for this as the M2

Transport Canada was the AME for Carson Air? Wasn't the pilot heavily intoxicated?

Yes. .25 On autopsy.