Ottawa orders probe of B.C. plane crashes???

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:51 am

Anybody remember this?

Ottawa orders probe of B.C. plane crashes
Failure to replace $10 part caused a crash that cost two lives

Larry Pynn
Vancouver Sun

Saturday, March 18, 2006

CREDIT: HO/Vancouver Sun
A faulty gasket caused an engine fire that led to crash and the deaths of both pilots at CFB Comox.

A converter plane gasket costs $10.

To listen to story, click link.

Transport Canada has ordered a "full review" of B.C.'s air-taxi industry in the wake of the deaths of 14 people in six accidents over the past 13 months.

Merlin Preuss, director-general of civil aviation, said in an interview Friday he has already summoned his B.C. officials to Ottawa to discuss the problem and start looking for answers.

"The buck stops here when we have program difficulties. I said, 'Look, this is not making any sense.' When you get that number we start asking ourselves some questions."

One of the B.C. accidents involved a faulty gasket costing about $10 that was manufactured in the U.S. The bad part caused a fire aboard a Navair cargo plane that crashed last April at CFB Comox, killing both pilots -- Wesley Payne, 25, and Jeremy Smulders, 23.

"We're sitting here fat, dumb, and happy, if you like, and then all of a sudden we get this spate of stuff going on on the Pacific Coast," Preuss said. "We have no conclusions yet."

He said the air-taxi industry is dominated by small companies with a high turnover rate, and employs young pilots who are "fresh out of the training schools" who want to build up their hours and ultimately fly for the major airlines.

A Transport Canada report a decade ago on small commercial aircraft led to a 50-per-cent drop nationally in fatal accidents. The current review needs to see if those recommendations are still being followed, he said.

"You can start backsliding," he warned, noting there is still a chance that the crashes are unrelated tragedies.

Preuss said he expected to see early results from the review starting in about a month.

Transport Canada is also running a three-year "risk management" program for airlines carrying 20 or more passengers. The airlines are being asked to look for problems early, before they become flight risks, he said. Smaller airlines are to follow. "We have an enviable safety record, frankly. But it isn't good enough anymore in our mind."

Transport Canada setup a task force in 1996 to review air taxi accidents. Its report, Safety of Air Taxi Operations, made 71 non-binding safety recommendations. Preuss believes the recommendations were implemented "one way or another."

The air taxi report cited the need to discourage clients -- which are sometimes government agencies -- from pressuring pilots to fly in dangerous conditions. It encouraged the aircraft industry to promote safety rather than undercut competitors.

The report said the "competitive nature of commercial aviation only contributes to the problem" and added that "government agencies and other air operator clients often award contracts to the operator who submits the lowest bid.

"They should understand the potential problem this creates especially in a competitive market where contracts are valued. By undercutting the competition, safety could be compromised if the air operator cuts costs elsewhere to make up for the revenue lost by taking the contract.

"Reducing the air operators' ability to be profitable creates operating pressures that are passed from the management throughout the company."

The report also urged improved "decision-making" for pilots so they make the right choice when flying in adverse conditions.

"Pilots are still pushing the weather!" the report said. "The decision to continue flight into deteriorating weather conditions may be caused by operational pressures that the air operator or client are imposing on the pilot, because of pressure the pilot is putting on himself."

It further recommended that "air operators not pressure pilots to operate in marginal weather conditions and support the pilot's decision to wait for suitable weather before departing or to turn around when the weather deteriorates."

The report urged an end to payment of pilots by the distance travelled or hours flown, or for completed flights, since it increases pressure on pilots to fly in dangerous conditions.

Did they forget?

V1 · Post by V1 » Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:14 am

I havn't forgot, but everyone else does. They will remember again if someone else dies.. isn't that how it works?

duCapo · Post by **duCapo** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:49 am

Preuss talks the talk, can he walk the walk?

duCapo · Post by **duCapo** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:52 am

The report said the "competitive nature of commercial aviation only contributes to the problem" and added that "government agencies and other air operator clients often award contracts to the operator who submits the lowest bid.

"They should understand the potential problem this creates especially in a competitive market where contracts are valued. By undercutting the competition, safety could be compromised if the air operator cuts costs elsewhere to make up for the revenue lost by taking the contract.

Here is one of the major underlying problems of the industry. Now will a different goverment department get on the bandwagon and do something for a change?

Wixel Pimp · Post by **Wixel Pimp** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:35 am

are you guys bored today??..nothing better to talk about??

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:43 am

You're right. Let's ignore the problems. They'll go away if we ignore them.

bcflyer · Post by **bcflyer** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:57 am

A converter plane gasket costs $10.

Can someone please tell me what a converter plane gasket is?

duCapo · Post by **duCapo** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:07 am

Wixel Pimp wrote:are you guys bored today??..nothing better to talk about??

well I can't fly today because I just had knee surgery, so maybe I will try to do something productive....like helping to promote aviation safety. If you ever get your pilots licence or God forbid you lose a loved one or friend in an accident, maybe you will begin to understand the importance of safety.

boeingboy · Post by **boeingboy** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:18 am

Correct me if I'm wrong - but wasn't that a Regency plane?

If so They've already been shut down.

Wixel Pimp · Post by **Wixel Pimp** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:19 am

duCapo wrote:
Wixel Pimp wrote:are you guys bored today??..nothing better to talk about??
well I can't fly today because I just had knee surgery, so maybe I will try to do something productive....like helping to promote aviation safety. If you ever get your pilots licence or God forbid you lose a loved one or friend in an accident, maybe you will begin to understand the importance of safety.

Digging up newspaper articles from 13 months ago constitutes boredom...not promoting aviation safety.
Current 703 companies are safe...

duCapo · Post by **duCapo** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:23 am

Navair I believe, and they are no longer in operation.
Wixel Pimp: Horseshit! they are all not safe. There are some pretty bad apples in the industry. We need to focus TC attention on them

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:26 am

bcflyer wrote:

A converter plane gasket costs $10.

Can someone please tell me what a converter plane gasket is?

Following an engine fire and crash of a Piper PA-31-350, TC confirmed, after consultation with the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, that the intent of Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2002 12-07 was to include "ALL rebuild or overhauled engines." Effectively, the intent was to broaden the "Applicability" section of the AD to ensure that all affected (old-style) gaskets identified by part number LW 13388 be removed from service, purged from the system, and replaced with new gaskets identified by part number 06B23072, in accordance with Part II or Part III of Textron Lycoming Supplement 1 to Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) 543A. TC sent a Service Difficulty Alert (AL-2005-08), dated 17 October 2005, to all owners, operators and overhaul facilities to ensure that owners/operators and overhaul facilities of engines affected by AD 2002-12-07 had complied with all the requirements stated within the AD, incorporated Lycoming MSB 543 latest issue, and ensured that inventories of spare parts had been purged of any converter plate gaskets identified by part number LW.

TSB Annual Report 2005/2006

trey kule · Post by **trey kule** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:28 am

Wixelpimp wrote

..." current 703 companies are safe" !!!!!!!!!!!!!

And exactly what set of facts did you use to come to that conclusion?

Oh wait a minute...is it because Merlin has stated the Canada has one of the safest air transportation systems in the world?

or maybe its because there has not been a 703 crash in, oh lets see,..... about a week.

It does not hurt to try and learn from the past in order to try and make the industry a better place.

Much better, in my opinion than those who would spout off unsubstantiated conclusions.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:30 am

Wixel Pimp wrote:Digging up newspaper articles from 13 months ago constitutes boredom...not promoting aviation safety.
Current 703 companies are safe...

???

This is a newspaper article I have kept on my desktop for the last year waiting for the results of the "review".

If you have no interest in promoting aviation safety in 703's, I'd suggest you not read threads I have started.

The TSB report linked above, also states:

Following a fatal floatplane upset occurrence, TC published an article in Issue 1/2005 of the Aviation Safety Letter, and plans to prepare new or revised safety promotional material to address the topic of underwater egress. It also intends to develop an emergency procedures training program for its inspectors and to review information on seaplane operations to determine the best method to reach private operators with information on conducting thorough pre-flight briefings, including underwater egress and situational awareness.

TC published an article in Issue 2/2005 of the Aviation Safety Letter that summarized an occurrence in which a pilot had advised a friend of his proposed flight itinerary, but the friend was unaware of his responsibilities concerning search and rescue notification requirements. The Aviation Safety Letter is sent to all Canadian licensed pilots. The article emphasized the need for pilots to ensure that persons responsible for the flight itinerary fully understand the search and rescue notification requirements.

So? Does anyone know anything about the emergency training procedures for TCCA inspectors of floatplane operations which were being developed?

And in a commercial op, it is the ops managers job to ensure the person responsible for the flight following fully understands the SAR notification requirements - so how come MJM didn't get in trouble for not following these requirements? Their ops manual did require them to notify SAR within one hour of knowing a plane was overdue or missing.

FOX-UNIFORM · Post by **FOX-UNIFORM** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:36 am

What about car crashes?? How many cars crash each day?? And how many people die in these crashes?? A @#$! load more than plane crashes... So why stop at Aviation safety?? What if I get killed on the way to the airport this morning in my car?? Would you give a shit then??

Accidents happen... that's why they are called accidents. Learn from them, don't stew on them!!

duCapo · Post by **duCapo** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:44 am

Kirsten, I think there are a couple of trolls here:-)

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:44 am

FOX-UNIFORM wrote:What about car crashes?? How many cars crash each day?? And how many people die in these crashes?? A @#$! load more than plane crashes... So why stop at Aviation safety?? What if I get killed on the way to the airport this morning in my car?? Would you give a shit then??

Accidents happen... that's why they are called accidents. Learn from them, don't stew on them!!

Well, first of all, you are comparing apples and oranges, and I'll bet you know it. If you would like to change your simple car crash to something more relevant like another form of PUBLIC transport ... but I digress - this is an AVIATION forum, therefore - aviation safety.

And learning from the accidents is the point. Do you know "my" story? Would you like to tell me what the aviation community or the public has learned from the tragic and unnecessary death of my husband? I will stew, until something has been learned.

trey kule · Post by **trey kule** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:46 am

Well , to be quite honest fox-uniform, I am not sure I would be all that concerned about someone who can not write a few sentences without resorting to profanity and vulgarity. But then again maybe it strenghtens your argument. Your mother must be proud.

I think the reference to auto safety is a different issue. Because some of us are concerned about making the aviation industry a better place, has nothing whatsoever to do with auto safety.

I dont expect you to agree, but I see no need for the type of language you use to post.

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:54 pm

FU (very clever name - I'm impressed), should you be killed in a car crash, we will miss you.

To stop the road carnage, maybe we'd all be safer if you took the bus.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:50 pm

" So why stop at Aviation safety?? What if I get killed on the way to the airport this morning in my car?? "

Well Fox-Uniform judging from your attitude towards aviation safety, if you are a pilot flying commercially Darwin's theory will have been shown to be beneficial to society as a whole.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:01 pm

Wixel Pimp:

Your comments about 703 being safe made me wonder about who you are, so I went back and read your posts here.

This about sums up what you know.

" Believe what you like, but there are some quality planes, pilots, and 703 companies operating out of YVR right now..."

WTF is going on in aviation when having quality planes and pilots operating in one of Canadas largest aviation centers is so unusual that people marvel at such a thing??

I wasnt marvelling, I was simply stating a fact. For the first time in a longtime, 703 in YVR is in a decent state. Pilots are getting treated well, flying good aircraft and accumulating some good time.

Everyone on this site rips on the 703 operators, but what you should be doing is removing your head from your ass and talk about things you actuallly have some knowledge about.[/quote]

Your quotes are in blue.

So if I don't know anything about 703 operations why don't you take some time and educate me?

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:04 pm

YVR isn't the only place 703 ops fly out of either.

snaproll20 · Post by **snaproll20** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:09 pm

Don't ya gotta luv the erudite prose that appears here?

Maybe Wixel and Fox-Uniform will enjoy a head-on on the highway, or somewhere, and put us out of their misery.

Hey, duCapo, how's the knee?????

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:26 pm

snaproll :

Were there this many " reality challenged " people in aviation when we were working for a living flying?

shitdisturber · Post by **shitdisturber** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:46 pm

Wixel Pimp wrote: Current 703 companies are safe...

Congratulations! That could well be the dumbest generalization ever made on AvCanada. If current 703 companies are safe, why are people still dying and why are there still operations out there operating old clapped out piles of junk?

Ottawa orders probe of B.C. plane crashes???

Ottawa orders probe of B.C. plane crashes???

Re: Ottawa orders probe of B.C. plane crashes???

Re: Ottawa orders probe of B.C. plane crashes???