Letter from Mr. Preuss - comments?

[Cat Driver]

Widow, FM is used by most all logging camps, road builders, etc. on the west coast.

There are repeater stations that make the coverage excellent.

I had it in my C 185 Amphib for talking to my clients and can not recall ever having problems with reception.

Forty ears ago we used HF for company communications and that works in most places, but not completely reliable.

There is no reason that with todays technology reliable communications should be a problem.

121.5 is VHF which is line of sight, however as someone else said all high flying airliners moniter it and it is a fairly reliable frequency unless you are really down in a narrow valley. And of course it can not be used for normal communications as it is an emergency frequency.

Cat

[arctic navigator]

Campbell River, Quadra Island, the whole area is mountainous, and in order to leave the spit you have to climb out of the hole to get to where you can be heard on 121.5 - if I'm not mistaken -unless someone is right over you of course.

Given that statement what help would a dispatch radio have been then? Were they not out of range of any potential company freq?

That part of the country is a bit hilly, I wouldnt call it mountainous but thats just me. Regardless, their are plenty of high flyers passing over that area to and from Asia and Alaska 24 hours a day, and Im sure at least some of them are monitoring 121.5. One problem that does come to mind though for ELT's is that most radio's automaticly block the ELT signals, unless you fly with the radio on test so you can hear the squelch.

[Widow]

This is taken from an aviator who left a message in our website http://www3.telus.net/public/t9232724/home guestbook:

"This accident was an unnessassary tradegy and my hope is that the efforts of Kirsten, Sally and all are recognized and positive changes are made within the Aviation Community, TC and TSB so we don't have to go through this again! Flying like many other activities, has it's inherant risks, that's why we have safety checks and other systems in place. When these fail due to complacency (be it a Pilot, Air Operator, AME, TC or TSB) we all are at risk. Arnie was not a complacent pilot and it saddens me to see that the complacency of so many others has casued such devastating results. Flying is not a solo activity, each hour aloft is due to a team of people from the airplane manufacturers to the weather briefer each working to the best of their abilities. Complacency can and will break down the team efforts and the results can be seen in accidents such as this. Lets ALL make every effort to combat complacency and hopefully avoid any more trageties. Sent with much love and respect...."

[wanderer]

Notwithstanding the accident flight, and notwithstanding the COM specified procedures, I'm curious what the typical flight following activities were with MJM.

Was the lack of communication here the exception to the rule or was the (non) flight following working the way that it always worked?

I think if a pilot is going VFR or on a company itinerary, that the pilot has a real interest in making sure that someone is on top of where they are at all times and that information is received when it is supposed to be. And that the company WILL call SAR after a specified period of time after an ETA without communication.

I don't know how common it is, but I've seen operators who are either ignorant of where their airplanes are or are more inclined to think that the pilot has forgotten to call or has been unable to find a method of communicating a safe arrival rather than start looking for them and pushing the alarm button if they are very concerned about the safety of the flight and exhausted other methods of locating their aircraft.

I've also seen pilots who do not communicate basic information to a company flight follower. An OFP (with all the details filled in) and manifest are basic information.

Because what it comes down to is this. If a plane is sitting in the tulips at the approach end or the departure end of a runway and the pilot is sitting at the controls with two broken legs, does that pilot not want to be 100% confident that in 50 minutes, someone is going to be looking for them and that they've provided details for SAR to go on via a complete OFP and manifest?

How many pilots work in a flight following environment where they're not 100% comfortable that this will happen? If not, why not? It's your life.

Widow, was your husband in a situation where MJM did not declare the flight missing for 4 hours? Without considering the TC regulations, was this typical of MJM? If so, this delay in declaring the aircraft missing could have been predicted. If I was a pilot with that company, I would have been terrified each time I went flying that there wasn't going to be anyone looking for me if I didn't make it to my destination.

I think that flight following often is overlooked as a primary component of the company's safety culture. There are several items that would ground an airplane. A suggestion to pilots - don't go unless you're sure that someone will come looking for you in the event that you don't make it to your destination.

[Widow]

Notwithstanding the accident flight, and notwithstanding the COM specified procedures, I'm curious what the typical flight following activities were with MJM.

...

Widow, was your husband in a situation where MJM did not declare the flight missing for 4 hours? Without considering the TC regulations, was this typical of MJM? If so, this delay in declaring the aircraft missing could have been predicted. If I was a pilot with that company, I would have been terrified each time I went flying that there wasn't going to be anyone looking for me if I didn't make it to my destination.

FYI it was the pilot's first official day on the payroll for MJM. Nor did the "dispatcher" have any way of knowing what was normal for the pilot. It was unclear what their intended route was going to be, due to weather, and the "dispatcher" should have been expecting a call within fifteen minutes of take-off advising which direction they were headed. The pilot had no way of knowing the lack of operational control, or the lack of care in maintenance. This is from a statement given to us by another operater on the spit which was involved before the official search began:

In closing with respect to the events of Feb 28, 2005 our observations of MJM’s flight operations and GAQW are as follows,

- There was no documented or confirmed flight routing for G-AQW on its final flight.

- There was no communications from departure time with G-AQW

- G-AQW was not flight followed. There had been prior discussions between xxx and MJM personnel regarding this matter.

- There appeared to be a lack of any sort of operational control.

It is also important to know that the large logging company that had (less than a year before) given them the contract that caused them to fly more than the owner's own employees on a regular basis, was fully aware of the lack of flight following, dispatch radio, etc. And this when they were already aware that MJM's log road-building company's maintenance practices were found to be a contributing factor in the death of someone on a joint worksite. Since my husband worked for that (and took his safety seriously by always wearing his floater coat) logging company, and his direct supervisor was on the safety board, I expect he's felt a little guilty. Which may be why he has kept me informed as to the changes to this logging company's contracts with air operaters (which appear to have forced MJM and at least one other op out of business).

This is a scary situation we've got here, that the officials should be paying a lot more attention to.

[wanderer]

This is a scary situation we've got here....

Agreed.

My sympathies.

Thank you for pursuing this.

I hope you achieve success through your efforts.

Regardless of what happens from Widow's pursuit of this as a regulatory issue, I do think that this incident should serve as a wake up call for pilots and dispatch about what a worst case scenario is when flight following fails.

It is absolutely the responsibility of the company to provide an effective flight following system. Having said that, the flight following system will only be effective if there is 100% commitment to make it work by all of the following: the company, the flight follower and the flight crews.

[Widow]

It does not require that the pilot-in-command be capable of communicating with a ground station at all times. Such a regulation would seriously hamper aviation operations wherever line-of-sight VHF communications are not possible.

Can anyone explain to me how a PIC being capable of communicating with a ground station at all times would hamper operations?

[Sulako]

Sure. If you are flying down low in a valley, or if you are flying low in a remote area, you aren't going to be able to talk to anyone unless they are very close. There's no practical way to overcome the line-of-sight restrictions that are inherent in vhf radios.

If you are a small operator, it might be difficult to afford the cost of sat phones etc.

[Widow]

Sure. If you are flying down low in a valley, or if you are flying low in a remote area, you aren't going to be able to talk to anyone unless they are very close. There's no practical way to overcome the line-of-sight restrictions that are inherent in vhf radios.

If you are a small operator, it might be difficult to afford the cost of sat phones etc.

This doesn't really explain to me how such a regulation would "hamper" operations. It would force operators to have efficient communications, and drive the shit operators (who can't even afford a sat phone) out of business. If you can't afford a good communications system, you should not be carrying paying passengers, IMHO.

[carholme]

Widow;

We carry an Iridium sat phone on board and it has been invaluable when an aircraft has had to sit down somewhere to wait out the weather. We are very strict with our flight following, ie; we want to know at all times where the a/c is. There are many reasons why the a/c may be over it's ETA and the sat phone has been a blessing and saved a lot of sweat. It has been extremely valuable when operating in the far north parts of Ontario. It is an added cost and we don't use it for idle chit chat but the extra expense to know what is going on with the a/c and crew is money well spent.

carholme

[Widow]

Carholme, yours is the kind of attitude I deeply respect.

[marktheone]

If you can't afford a good communications system, you should not be carrying paying passengers, IMHO.

That right there is the problem.

The public wants to fly for free everywhere. I say again, fix that and every thing else will start to fall into line. A good number of the smaller operators would not be able to foot the cost of sat phones.

[nyco]

question for emergencies
Any operator has switched to the 406MHZ frequency yet?
i m just curious, as it'll be the next standard and seems to be way more reliable

maybe wrong place to post?

[Widow]

If you can't afford a good communications system, you should not be carrying paying passengers, IMHO.

That right there is the problem.

The public wants to fly for free everywhere. I say again, fix that and every thing else will start to fall into line. A good number of the smaller operators would not be able to foot the cost of sat phones.

I think one of the things that has to be remembered, is that a lot of those "paying passengers" (like my husband) have their travel plans dictated by the company which they work for. If that company, in turn, cares more about money than safety, then the "paying passenger" is truly stuck. I believe that companies/industries which traditionally use charter ops to transport their employees (e.g. logging industry), need to be held equally responsible for ensuring the safety of their workers. This is a good part of why I am beginning to believe that an aviation industry safety association should be formulated - which could work with the regional worker's comp or oh&s towards safety certificates and reduced premiums. Other industries could then take charge and not use ops that are not safety certified by WCB or OH&S.

[Dust Devil]

Sure. If you are flying down low in a valley, or if you are flying low in a remote area, you aren't going to be able to talk to anyone unless they are very close. There's no practical way to overcome the line-of-sight restrictions that are inherent in vhf radios.

If you are a small operator, it might be difficult to afford the cost of sat phones etc.

This doesn't really explain to me how such a regulation would "hamper" operations. It would force operators to have efficient communications, and drive the shit operators (who can't even afford a sat phone) out of business. If you can't afford a good communications system, you should not be carrying paying passengers, IMHO.

The sat phone and GPS tracking system will set an operator back $20,000 after the paperwork is done. not including the install. Got a quote a couple weeks ago. I think it gets cheaper for additional units because once you pay for the stc your good to go as long as your fleet is the same.

[Widow]

That's a cost issue, that doesn't "hamper" operations. If an op can't afford a SAT and GPS, then the communication system should be backed up with other means of ensuring safety ... like well trained dispatch/flight followers who understand the importance of calling SAR immediately if an aircraft is overdue or missing.

Don't forget that the op that Mr. Preuss is referring to in his letter to me, was operating with only a land line/cell phone for dispatch/flight following purposes from the ground. Not only do the cell phones not often work in the air for emergency purposes of the pilot, they don't always work right here in town (several dead zones) if said "dispatcher" should need to run some errands.

[marktheone]

Widow,

I agree with you. If companies (logging) can find cheap flights of course they will take them. I have no idea why this industry eats itself. I stopped allowing that to happen here long ago. At the end of the day it is the operators responsibility to provide safe flights. I do not agree that we need a union. Usually IMHO unions make things worse.

After years in this it would seem that we are perhaps unable to regulate ourselves with respect to fares. Where the hell is the CTA? Is that not what they do? I couldn't give a damn what the airlines do but regional and charter ops should be sitting down and discussing a mileage price. I realize that there is potential pitfalls there, that fact is inherent whenever the government is involved in anything.

It boggles the mind how companies will operate and not make money. What is the farkin point then? If a company hasn't got the balls to charge then get the f_ck out of this business. Widow to make a diference what I am suggesting here is another means to the same end. That I promise you. I don't know MJM but I would venture to say that he didn't want anyone to die. Likely he got caught up in "keeping the contract" and flew to cheap and something had to be sacrificed. Most human nature is not to be stupid enough to knowingly hurt others and I doubt he is any different than that. Again, i don't know him. Maybe he is a real as_hole??

I also looked at the sat tracking a month ago. If memory serves it was $38K per aircraft and it is not STC'd for our types in Canada yet, though it is a Canadian company that does it.

[Cat Driver]

Well how about using a non STC'ed sat phone for communicating when in a location where VHF or FM will not work?

We have been using portable and hand held Sat phones since 1996 in our business flying all over the world.

The phones went from briefcase size down to hand helds over that time period and communications were excellent from Greenland to the South Atlantic and everywhere in between.

The last Sat phone we used cost us around $250.00 for a months rental and it worked perfect from England to North America even in flight...every time .....

If a charter company can not afford $250.00 per month for excellent communications just imagine what their maintenance is like.

Same for FM, you do not need a STC for something that is not bolted to the airplane, this idea that you must pay a fortune for approval defeats the safety advantage.

[jjal]

Thank you for your explanation of your situation. For some time I have known about your efforts but did not feel it was necessary to publicly ask you for an explanation.

My condolences.

I have some comments from this thread - not meaning to play devil's advocate and perhaps they stem from my lack of in depth knowledge of your situation, but this is what I have come up with:

"Type D operational control requirements are intentionally permissive in recognition of the realities that limit communication in some areas of the country" attitude is telling me to bite the biscuit.

I am sorry I must disagree. He simply stated that TC understands that it is impossible to regulate that everyon ebe in constant ground contact at any and all times. Such things are not within the realm of feasibility in a country such as this.

Yes, GPS/SAT/whatever are a good idea and good companies should go for them, TC is just saying the operational control requirements are understanding of the challenges we face.

As for the auditing, I don't find it acceptable that the company was audited in 2001, and then not again for four and a half years - six months after the fatal accident.

Absolutely not. That one is TC's error. Seems like we're getting audited every time we turn around (with good results other than paperwork issues ) and we haven't had a fatal accident in 26 years. Last 'incident' was 12 years (???) ago and everyone walked away.

As for the possibility of bogus engine studs, the FAA are (according to our sources) awaiting the results of this TSB investigation (or lack thereof) to do further analysis. Although the maintenance logs indicate that all AD's with respect to the engine had been carried out, it is our contention that, as proven with the floats, the AMO was not making accurate records. Since the guy who was doing the signing off at the AMO used to be the Ops Manager for the accident company, I don't find him trustworthy. Further more, knowing that in order to comply with applicable airworthiness directives and do a visual and torque inspection of ALL the cylinder hold-down studs (90 in all) would take about a whole days work to remove the baffles and exhaust shrouds, it seems unlikely to us that the owner approved the cost of manhours. This should be verifiable by looking at the AMO logs and financial records. In addition to this, are the many witnesses who will speak to how poorly the engine had been running for the previous several months.

From where I sit it looks like your efforts ought to be directed more towards the former executives and managers at the company, rather than TC. I agree that TC should have an active interest in this and, if necessary, make appropriate reg. changes - but from what I see so far, and I am new to this situation / discussion - it looks like the company buggered up BIG TIME. Even the most restrictive TC regs won't save a company that is ran so shoddily. (Is that a word?)

Not trying to minimize your efforts, but to me it looks like going after the company / former "brass" in court - have them foudn guilty of negligence would be a more efficient way from bringing change at TC. My $0.02 and I may be way off...

Don't tell me to go away.

I assure you I am not.

In closing with respect to the events of Feb 28, 2005 our observations of MJM’s flight operations and GAQW are as follows,

- There was no documented or confirmed flight routing for G-AQW on its final flight.

- There was no communications from departure time with G-AQW

- G-AQW was not flight followed. There had been prior discussions between xxx and MJM personnel regarding this matter.

- There appeared to be a lack of any sort of operational control.

Again, this gets back to company's failure to abide by a) existing regs and b) some common sense

changes to this logging company's contracts with air operaters (which appear to have forced MJM and at least one other op out of business).

Good. This is the kind of attitude that unfortunately wasn't there to avoid the accident, but it is a positive point that it is now there. If more companies thought like this, there wouldn't be the need for TC to clamp down more than they already have.



Just some thoughts I had while reading this very interesting, and very important thread.

Take care

jjal

[airway]

One problem that does come to mind though for ELT's is that most radio's automaticly block the ELT signals, unless you fly with the radio on test so you can hear the squelch.

I have heard ELT signals several times in flight without touching the squelch. You would only need to turn up the squelch if it was a weak signal or far away, just like any other VHF transmission.

[Crazed Windscreen]

This doesn't really explain to me how such a regulation would "hamper" operations. It would force operators to have efficient communications, and drive the shit operators (who can't even afford a sat phone) out of business. If you can't afford a good communications system, you should not be carrying paying passengers, IMHO.

Ahhh if all you can do is fly within the circumference of your VHF reception your not going to get very far on the coast.

[/quote]XXXX was not a complacent pilot and it saddens me to see that the complacency of so many others has caused such devastating results.

FYI it was the pilot's first official day on the payroll for MJM. Nor did the "dispatcher" have any way of knowing what was normal for the pilot. It was unclear what their intended route was going to be, due to weather, and the "dispatcher" should have been expecting a call within fifteen minutes of take-off advising which direction they were headed. The pilot had no way of knowing the lack of operational control, or the lack of care in maintenance

The pilot has all the control and if he didn't like the situation he should have stayed home.

are the many witnesses who will speak to how poorly the engine had been running for the previous several months.[/quote]

How come non of these witnesses told the pilot before the flight or before being hired?

Why didn't these witnesses report this to TC??????

If you remember the Cap Rouge accident you will remember the Coast Guard and the SAR's being ripped in the media for not getting to the scene fast enough to save lives. There are men still on disability from the effects of the blame game on that one.
What about the captain that overloaded his boat then loaded his family on board and sailed from salt water into the Fraser River with the freshet running? Why didn't he get blamed?

Whose fault was the accident?

Maybe your pilot made mistakes maybe he flew into deteriorating weather.
If there was a failure of the engine why didn't he land? It was flat as a pancake out there that day. I'm guessing he was in the fog when his engine crapped out and he stalled the airplane at low level into the water, and that's why this happened.

The last line of defence on any flight is the pilot. When everything else goes to shit it's up to him to either keep it right side up or to say he's not going flying today.

What would you be saying if the pilot lived through this and he admitted to flying into the fog?

Widow your argument is getting old and is all one sided. There is no one here to say what actually happened out there that day. And this will no doubt haunt you and many others for a very long time. You keep saying that you are on here to promote safety and yet you continue to use the only experience you have had with this as an example of the industry. You continue to cast allegations towards the so called shady operators and TC but only have experience with one accident? Are you going to argue for others once this is over? If so than I am wrong in my tirade.

According to you, your an expert.
How you are an expert is beyond me. There is no way that an expert can be so emotionally attached and still have clarity enough to comment rationally and without an agenda.

This has become a chicken little story. Come down from your soap box.

I have witnessed 4 fatal accidents in my life and in everyone of them you could say, if the pilot had only.......

The people that will affect change are the people that are on this forum that work in the industry. The last line of defence.

Say no when you don't want to go!

I'm sure I'll get blasted for this one.

[Cat Driver]

" You keep saying that you are on here to promote safety and yet you continue to use the only experience you have had with this as an example of the industry. You continue to cast allegations towards the so called shady operators and TC but only have experience with one accident? "

The float plane " bush flying " segment of aviation has historically had a systemic disregard for the regulations especially when it comes to over loading airplanes and poor maintenance, that combined with the culture of intimidation of pilots to fly beyond their comfort or experience level has resulted in far to many accidents.

As to reporting non compliance to TCCA, that is truly a risk one must be very careful with.

Cat

[Widow]

Boy, a few things up there I'd like to respond to ...

First off, I never said I was an expert, I said I was "becoming a bit of an expert". I have spent the last year researching accidents around the world. I am currently working with other families who have lost loved ones in the industry, so YES, I will be arguing for others in the future.

How come non of these witnesses told the pilot before the flight or before being hired?

They weren't people who were working at the company, but people who had flown in the previous months, or observed things on the spit/ at the AMO. They likely had no opportunity to tell him.

Why didn't these witnesses report this to TC??????

They did.

Whose fault was the accident?

I have never denied that the pilot may have made errors - but it was not his errors that caused the engine to fail, or for the incident to become an accident.

I am sorry I must disagree. He simply stated that TC understands that it is impossible to regulate that everyon ebe in constant ground contact at any and all times. Such things are not within the realm of feasibility in a country such as this.

I understand it is not possible to be in constant contact - given that, it should be required that positional reports be given frequently - for which a cell phone is inadequate. An operators communication system needs to be evaluated in reference to where it is operating. No one will ever convince me that an operator who does not have any kind of radio for flight following purposes (in office, or using someone elses), and has no back-up system of positional reporting, is operating safely.

I don't know MJM but I would venture to say that he didn't want anyone to die. Likely he got caught up in "keeping the contract" and flew to cheap and something had to be sacrificed. Most human nature is not to be stupid enough to knowingly hurt others and I doubt he is any different than that. Again, i don't know him. Maybe he is a real as_hole??

and

From where I sit it looks like your efforts ought to be directed more towards the former executives and managers at the company, rather than TC.

We are going after the company (criminally, we cannot go after them civilly - everyone on board was working). The RCMP are unlikely to press charges, however, if TC will not say the company did anything wrong.

I doubt the owner of MJM "wanted anyone to die" either, however, his own history tells us he didn't make efforts to stop such things either. The "dispatch/office girl" at MJM was his girlfriend, and never trained according to witnesses. Less than two years before the accident, a worker of his died on a different type of job-site ... WCB found the company responsible - brakes not maintained, critical weld performed by unqualifed welder in improper environment, etc. One would think he would have learned from that incident to take better care of his equipment, but CGAQW, (and the aircraft he had leased and returned in poor condition) tell us he did not. Earlier this month, another worker died on another of his job sites .... maybe an unpreventable accident - we doubt it.

There is a lot of information on my website about this accident - follow the links to expert statements for a better understanding of what probably initiated things, and what turned an incident into a fatal accident. It is because of our pressure that TC has issued the new R-985 service bulletin. We are bringing up the engine next week, and that will put closure to the initiating event - but again, it was not engine failure that killed these guys.

PS. For those of you who are tired of me, stop reading my posts.

[beechy]

I'm all for the GPS tracking system, if in remote area's a Sat phone is a great Idea to carry on board.....however

If you're flying on the coast with 1000' ceilings, you're flying low over the water. If the wind is light the water is glassy, then you see oil all over the windscreen and before you know it you're trying to pull yourself out of a damaged plane that is sinking, are you really going to be thinking damn let me grab my sat phone? Or i better call ops....no you are going to get out as fast as you can and hope someone finds you.

All I am trying to say is the problem here seems to be with maintenance and not putting money into that side of things. That is what i would be upset about, if poor maint. was involved....which sometimes is hard to prove. Flying in those conditions you want a plane that is looked after. I really don't see what constant communication with base would do to help this situation, other then to add another load on the pilots shoulders.....especially when flying low in adverse weather.

That being said GPS positioning equipment is well worth the price tag, that at least the pilot doesnt have to think about. We tried it out were iam working and it was quite a awesome thing.

I also don't believe that everyone flying should wear parachutes so take my post in stride, but this is my opinion. There are risks associated with flight. They should be minimized but regulating the industry to death isn't going to solve the problems........responsible ownership would.

[Cat Driver]

" If you're flying on the coast with 1000' ceilings, you're flying low over the water "

Beechy, a thousand foot ceiling is severe clear for a west coast pilot.

Where the problems arise is flying in one hundred foot ceilings over glassy water and having to turn or land with an engine failure.

I am not sure what this pilots ceiling and vis was but a thousand feet should be no problem.