For those following the story, we led off the five o'clock on Check6 News ... should be on again at 6, 11 and tomorrow morning. I'll post a link later.
Our local news has been very good about staying with the case, despite assurances that "Canada has one of the safest aviation systems in the world".
Widow in the news
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
-
lilfssister
- Rank Moderator
- Posts: 2783
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 2:51 pm
- Location: Mysteryville Castle
Kirsten, I admire your tenacity. If every one had someone, who even after their death, fought as hard as you do to get justice and closure...
At times you may feel you are beating your head against a brick wall, but we all would (should) feel honoured that someone would fight so hard to find closure/justice.
At times you may feel you are beating your head against a brick wall, but we all would (should) feel honoured that someone would fight so hard to find closure/justice.
Widow,
As I have mentioned before, there are some serious issues in Canadian aviation that require attention and I hope your efforts help that proces along however, your insistance that Canada does "not" have one of the safest aviation industries (or "systems" as you like) in the world is quite offensive to people like me who make our living in aviation.
I don't expect you to care or even acknowledge that. You have no obligation of course. I did however want to go on record as saying that as someone who has actually worked within the industry for sevearal years that the Canadian aviation industry enjoys one of the best safety records in the world.
Like I said before. Focus your efforts. You have legitimate concerns with certain segments of the industry but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
As I have mentioned before, there are some serious issues in Canadian aviation that require attention and I hope your efforts help that proces along however, your insistance that Canada does "not" have one of the safest aviation industries (or "systems" as you like) in the world is quite offensive to people like me who make our living in aviation.
I don't expect you to care or even acknowledge that. You have no obligation of course. I did however want to go on record as saying that as someone who has actually worked within the industry for sevearal years that the Canadian aviation industry enjoys one of the best safety records in the world.
Like I said before. Focus your efforts. You have legitimate concerns with certain segments of the industry but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
As a response to a demand for an investigation for cause, a reiteration of how safe Canada's aviation system is hardly appropriate.
If your loved one dies of cancer, and you ask "what kind of cancer", it would hardly be appropriate to reply "canada has the best cancer treatment in the world".
I would agree that when it comes to airlines, Canada does have one of the safest aviation systems in the world. The evidence I have seen, however, does not support this in terms of the 703 ops - my area of concern.
If your loved one dies of cancer, and you ask "what kind of cancer", it would hardly be appropriate to reply "canada has the best cancer treatment in the world".
I would agree that when it comes to airlines, Canada does have one of the safest aviation systems in the world. The evidence I have seen, however, does not support this in terms of the 703 ops - my area of concern.
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
Dear Widow,
Like many here, I feel compassion towards your loss but am losing interest in your cause as you seem to be barking up all the trees in the forrest.
Stick to one thing at a time and you'll get better results.
If you could sum up your crusade in a 100 words, like a mission statement, what would it be?
Regards and best of luck in whatever endeavours you chose to pursue.
Like many here, I feel compassion towards your loss but am losing interest in your cause as you seem to be barking up all the trees in the forrest.
Stick to one thing at a time and you'll get better results.
If you could sum up your crusade in a 100 words, like a mission statement, what would it be?
Regards and best of luck in whatever endeavours you chose to pursue.
Beaver Crash
I too am offended. I should probably go back and read your website memorial and some of the points you made in your posts but I have been in Aviation in Canada for 18 years and found it to be a rewarding and interesting career. I will be the first to say that what happened to your husband is devastating and no pilot wants to hear that one of his fellow aviators did'nt make it home. I've had 3 friends (pilots) die in airplanes they were flying. The thing about aviation is that after all is said and done with regards to maintenence, training, regulatory influence, company pressure/influence, peer pressure, etc.....the PIC makes the final decision to push the start button and go flying. In this respect, it is a very different occupation than anything else.
I will review the dispute you have with Merlin Pruess, but will state on my own behalf that Canadian Aviation as a regulatory body has no greater interest than Aviation Safety.
I will review the dispute you have with Merlin Pruess, but will state on my own behalf that Canadian Aviation as a regulatory body has no greater interest than Aviation Safety.
Ahhh,
Widow I see your point. Perhaps it wasn't the most sensitive response considering your circumstances. I can't say that if I was in your particular predicament I wouldn't feel the same.
Notwithstanding that, I can also see TC's point if they consider your inquiry a challenge to the overall safety record of aviation in Canada.
Using your cancer analogy, if I went after the entire medical system in Canada because a family member died of cancer, I may be wasting some effort. Furthermore it may be appropriate for the sytem to state their overall record as a starting point.
So...yes I see your side but I also see TC's in this instance.
Widow I see your point. Perhaps it wasn't the most sensitive response considering your circumstances. I can't say that if I was in your particular predicament I wouldn't feel the same.
Notwithstanding that, I can also see TC's point if they consider your inquiry a challenge to the overall safety record of aviation in Canada.
Using your cancer analogy, if I went after the entire medical system in Canada because a family member died of cancer, I may be wasting some effort. Furthermore it may be appropriate for the sytem to state their overall record as a starting point.
So...yes I see your side but I also see TC's in this instance.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
" .....the PIC makes the final decision to push the start button and go flying. In this respect, it is a very different occupation than anything else. "
Then why have a regulator, if the pilot is the only one that can be held to be responsible when things go wrong?
Interesting comment you are making, on what basis do you believe that TC's intrest in safety is so high on the scale?I will review the dispute you have with Merlin Pruess, but will state on my own behalf that Canadian Aviation as a regulatory body has no greater interest than Aviation Safety.
From my observations based on being in management and ownership of Canadian aviation businesses I would suggest that TC has some very serious short commings and are disfunctional at best in many areas.
So widows concerns do not offend me in the least, in fact I believe she is doing a great favour to this industry by trying to get answers to some serious flaws within the industry, namely the regulator.
If you are really interested I could supply you with enough documentation regarding how Merlin Preuss operates you wouldn't want to defend him on any level............correction " shouldn't " want to." I will review the dispute you have with Merlin Pruess, "
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Lilfssister: Thank you.
Big Pratt: Please don't confuse the "quest for justice" started by members of AvCanada to try to have the concerns of the small ops heard before the Standing Committee. That is separate from what this thread is about - that over two years after the crash of AQW, the cause is still unkown and there has been no real investigation into how it happened or how my husband came to drown hours later. Since the RCMP, the Coroner, WorksafeBC, and Transport Canada, all say that they are waiting for more information from the TSB before any investigation/action of their own. But TSB is, as far as we know, still refusing to do an investigation for cause or increase the level of investigation. They won't even tell us if they are going to be completing a report which reflects any of the key issues (engine failure, float condition, lack of flight following, SAR contact, etc). What we want from ANY official body, is a public inquiry.
blachang: My beef with Preuss is simple. When I ask him why it is acceptable that the operator failed to follow it's emergency procedures and contact SAR in a timely manner - which resulted in my husbands death - he tells me they acted within the regulations. When I ask about the apparent lack of inspection, he refers me to Access to Information - which took a year to process and has now been "lost" in the mail. When I ask what action Transport Canada has taken with regard to it's own recommendations to itself under SATOPs (which action, I feel, could have prevented this accident from ever occurring), I'm told "Canada has one of the safest aviation systems in the world".
CID: If my inquiry is a challenge to the overall safety record of aviation in Canada, then perhaps the best route of action would be to bring up the engine and shut me up.
Big Pratt: Please don't confuse the "quest for justice" started by members of AvCanada to try to have the concerns of the small ops heard before the Standing Committee. That is separate from what this thread is about - that over two years after the crash of AQW, the cause is still unkown and there has been no real investigation into how it happened or how my husband came to drown hours later. Since the RCMP, the Coroner, WorksafeBC, and Transport Canada, all say that they are waiting for more information from the TSB before any investigation/action of their own. But TSB is, as far as we know, still refusing to do an investigation for cause or increase the level of investigation. They won't even tell us if they are going to be completing a report which reflects any of the key issues (engine failure, float condition, lack of flight following, SAR contact, etc). What we want from ANY official body, is a public inquiry.
blachang: My beef with Preuss is simple. When I ask him why it is acceptable that the operator failed to follow it's emergency procedures and contact SAR in a timely manner - which resulted in my husbands death - he tells me they acted within the regulations. When I ask about the apparent lack of inspection, he refers me to Access to Information - which took a year to process and has now been "lost" in the mail. When I ask what action Transport Canada has taken with regard to it's own recommendations to itself under SATOPs (which action, I feel, could have prevented this accident from ever occurring), I'm told "Canada has one of the safest aviation systems in the world".
CID: If my inquiry is a challenge to the overall safety record of aviation in Canada, then perhaps the best route of action would be to bring up the engine and shut me up.
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
Sorry widow. Even if its proven that the engine on this 50+ year old single engine piston float plane flying VFR wasn't maintained properly, all that will establish is that the company was operating in contradiction to the rules.
From what I understand there were several factors including possible glassy water.
That falls far short of establishing that the "overall safety record of aviation in Canada" is unacceptable.
Your statement would be much more palitable if you stuck to 703 operators.
Just for my benefit, could you state your goals in this endevour? After reading so many letters and statements I'm sort of lost. Is there potential litigation against the owners based on the state of the engine?
From what I understand there were several factors including possible glassy water.
That falls far short of establishing that the "overall safety record of aviation in Canada" is unacceptable.
Your statement would be much more palitable if you stuck to 703 operators.
Just for my benefit, could you state your goals in this endevour? After reading so many letters and statements I'm sort of lost. Is there potential litigation against the owners based on the state of the engine?
I too have issue with the continued highlighting of the phrase "Canada has one of the safest aviation systems in the world".
From my experience in the world it is true. Discard all second and third world nations and look at only first world. That leaves Europe, Japan, Australia/New Zealand and the USA. Europe and Japan can be eliminated because they do not have the same geography/terrain and high volume of GA operators.
Australia/New Zealand from my limited exposure do have better systems, but as far as safety records we are quite similar.
The USA would be the closest comparison for both geography/terrain and volume of GA aircraft and from my experience working in the USA I would say the overall pictures are similar.
So while Canada does have a very safe aviation system there is always room for improvements. With this in mind I think we should all support those taking a look at the system and regulators in place.
But always remember that man was not designed to fly. When we do fly, we fly in machines that are fallable, flown by humans with physical limitations. Therefore aviation will always have an inherent danger.
From my experience in the world it is true. Discard all second and third world nations and look at only first world. That leaves Europe, Japan, Australia/New Zealand and the USA. Europe and Japan can be eliminated because they do not have the same geography/terrain and high volume of GA operators.
Australia/New Zealand from my limited exposure do have better systems, but as far as safety records we are quite similar.
The USA would be the closest comparison for both geography/terrain and volume of GA aircraft and from my experience working in the USA I would say the overall pictures are similar.
So while Canada does have a very safe aviation system there is always room for improvements. With this in mind I think we should all support those taking a look at the system and regulators in place.
But always remember that man was not designed to fly. When we do fly, we fly in machines that are fallable, flown by humans with physical limitations. Therefore aviation will always have an inherent danger.
Thanks for the concise explanation Widow.
IMHO opinion, other than getting answers to your specific crash for obvious personal reasons, you should concentrate your efforts into pushing forward this personal rant of mine.
Research the FAA program in Alaska called Capstone.
Push at various levels of government and media to have something similar adopted in canada. A similar system should be free (minus maybe the equipment, but you could also get it to pay for itself in reduced insurance rates)
It's more or less an integrated glass cockpit in a box that contains "EGPWS", an artificial view of terrain, satelite weather and most important of all (for your cause) a two-way satelite link that sends the A/C position to a central location.
I think that if you managed to implement something similar on all small and medium passenger carrying commercial A/C you would do a lot more good and save a lot more lives than by posting any sensationalistic fact lacking article you can get your hands on.
Trust me, the vast majority do want safety improvements but pick a definite goal and go, go, go for it.
Just think of all the lives that could be saved thanks to the "<insert> Canadian Air Taxi Safety Initiative"
That's all I have to say, take it for what it's worth.
Either way, once again my sympathies and best of luck.
BP
IMHO opinion, other than getting answers to your specific crash for obvious personal reasons, you should concentrate your efforts into pushing forward this personal rant of mine.
Research the FAA program in Alaska called Capstone.
Push at various levels of government and media to have something similar adopted in canada. A similar system should be free (minus maybe the equipment, but you could also get it to pay for itself in reduced insurance rates)
It's more or less an integrated glass cockpit in a box that contains "EGPWS", an artificial view of terrain, satelite weather and most important of all (for your cause) a two-way satelite link that sends the A/C position to a central location.
I think that if you managed to implement something similar on all small and medium passenger carrying commercial A/C you would do a lot more good and save a lot more lives than by posting any sensationalistic fact lacking article you can get your hands on.
Trust me, the vast majority do want safety improvements but pick a definite goal and go, go, go for it.
Just think of all the lives that could be saved thanks to the "<insert> Canadian Air Taxi Safety Initiative"
That's all I have to say, take it for what it's worth.
Either way, once again my sympathies and best of luck.
BP
-
lilfssister
- Rank Moderator
- Posts: 2783
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 2:51 pm
- Location: Mysteryville Castle
All you guys who fly for a living:
You crash, you die.
TC says everything was great. All your paper work was in order.
Your widow/mother of your young children says "ok, even though some people tell me the rules mean everything was by the book, but I'm not sure, the govt says everythign is okie dokie". So, You bielieve a gov't dept that has no "involevment" in yr pending case, you believe the defendant, or you believe no one.
You crash, you die.
TC says everything was great. All your paper work was in order.
Your widow/mother of your young children says "ok, even though some people tell me the rules mean everything was by the book, but I'm not sure, the govt says everythign is okie dokie". So, You bielieve a gov't dept that has no "involevment" in yr pending case, you believe the defendant, or you believe no one.
CID, I have never claimed a problem with the overall safety record of Canadian aviation. It was you who said
My concerns, as I expressed above, are with 703 ops. I do, however, feel that the air taxi ops safety records reflect badly on the overall record.
I think my intentions with regard to the AQW investigation are clearly expressed above.
And no, there is no potential for litigation against the owners - for any reason - the deceased were all employed and covered by WCB and therefore all private employers in Canada are immune from civil action in this case. You cannot sue your boss, or anyone elses boss if you are hurt on the job.
The whole thing is very intricate, and reaches beyond aviation into the forest industry - which is why after two years, the coroner and WorksafeBC should be investigating - with or without the co-operation or involvement of the TSB. But since they and the RCMP, wait for something more from the TSB, I would just really like to know if they are waiting in vain. If the TSB is not going to lift the engine or do an investigation for cause, are they going to do a final investigative report? I don't think that is too much to ask. And a simple answer, even "no", would at least give me an idea of what to expect and what my next step should be.
PS: Here's the news clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmESselfqBE
CID wrote:I can also see TC's point if they consider your inquiry a challenge to the overall safety record of aviation in Canada.
My concerns, as I expressed above, are with 703 ops. I do, however, feel that the air taxi ops safety records reflect badly on the overall record.
I think my intentions with regard to the AQW investigation are clearly expressed above.
And no, there is no potential for litigation against the owners - for any reason - the deceased were all employed and covered by WCB and therefore all private employers in Canada are immune from civil action in this case. You cannot sue your boss, or anyone elses boss if you are hurt on the job.
The whole thing is very intricate, and reaches beyond aviation into the forest industry - which is why after two years, the coroner and WorksafeBC should be investigating - with or without the co-operation or involvement of the TSB. But since they and the RCMP, wait for something more from the TSB, I would just really like to know if they are waiting in vain. If the TSB is not going to lift the engine or do an investigation for cause, are they going to do a final investigative report? I don't think that is too much to ask. And a simple answer, even "no", would at least give me an idea of what to expect and what my next step should be.
PS: Here's the news clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmESselfqBE
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
-
sky's the limit
- Rank Moderator
- Posts: 4614
- Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:38 am
- Location: Now where's the starter button on this thing???
I'll second that.istp wrote:Keep fightin' the good fight, widow. I find your energy amazing. I wish I had half as much.
-istp
There seem to be a great many ppl on here who are either in total denial, or have very limited experience flying in this country, and I don't think it's the latter.
There are things happening in our industry that are known to be unsafe, yet they persist, how come? To rest on the "PIC has the final decision" argument is simplifying things to an insulting level. When I hit the starter button, I ASSUME many rules and procedures are being followed by our Mntc Dept, my owner, the manufacturer, and my fellow pilots. I take that for granted - I have to, or I'd never go flying again.
It seems to me Widow is drawing some flak because she's hitting close to the mark, much like the other Kristin did in NW Ont a couple weeks ago. Nobody is saying everyone is unsafe, but imho to deny there are unsafe practices occurring in Canadian Aviation is naive, as is the assumption that TC is a trustworthy, transparent organization with our safety foremost in it mandate. It's not the case, they simply proclaim it to be.
Keep after it Widow.
STL
-
happily.retired
- Rank 4
- Posts: 225
- Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:52 pm
- Location: Variable
Why are people getting so bent about someone wanting to investigate the safety systems in Canada? If they are as good as you seem to think then there won't be any problems found. If things aren't sufficient then any subsequent improvements will protect your tail too.
There is always room for improvement when it comes to safety and I for one am greatfull to those who are doing the hard work for all our sakes.
Widow, you have my appreciation, condolences, and respect. Stay strong.
There is always room for improvement when it comes to safety and I for one am greatfull to those who are doing the hard work for all our sakes.
Widow, you have my appreciation, condolences, and respect. Stay strong.
Happily got it right - what are all you guys afraid of? 3 deaths of pilots you knew? How many accountants thunder in at work when their computers explode or their ceiling fans throw a blade or they stab themselves in the eye with a poorly maintained pencil? And how many in their office do they take with them?
This isn't a game; its where we offer our highly trained, expert, professional services to an unenlightened public who just want to go somewhere, and we pledge to take care of them and protect them and bring them to their destination safely.
You guys just don't get it, do you? You should all be grateful to Widow that she has the energy and drive to find out what's happening in our industry. We can only benefit from whatever she finds or accomplishes.
Take your heads out and support this woman!
And for the record, just because a Beav is 50 years old has NO BEARING on whether the accident is 'excusable' or 'understandable' or 'expected' any other words you can use.
This isn't a game; its where we offer our highly trained, expert, professional services to an unenlightened public who just want to go somewhere, and we pledge to take care of them and protect them and bring them to their destination safely.
You guys just don't get it, do you? You should all be grateful to Widow that she has the energy and drive to find out what's happening in our industry. We can only benefit from whatever she finds or accomplishes.
Take your heads out and support this woman!
And for the record, just because a Beav is 50 years old has NO BEARING on whether the accident is 'excusable' or 'understandable' or 'expected' any other words you can use.
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
Very well said gentlemen, I would only add that anyone who thinks this is only a problem with 703 also has their head in the sand. There are also a lot of 704/705 operators who need a wake-up call, not to mention the AMO's who contribute to it.
I think everyone in aviation should support what Widow is doing here as it will only benefit us in the long run.
I am impressed with the determination of Widow in her endevours and hope that eventually she can find the answers and closure that she needs.
Keep up the good work Widow...
I think everyone in aviation should support what Widow is doing here as it will only benefit us in the long run.
I am impressed with the determination of Widow in her endevours and hope that eventually she can find the answers and closure that she needs.
Keep up the good work Widow...
Good on 'ya Widow,
Keep calling these guys on their bs rhetoric and bs answers to your questions.
-----------------------------------------
Cat raised an interesting issue and I'll loosely quote - "why have a regulator when the final decision is up to the PIC?"
I think part of the problem is that a lot of guys go flying even when they know safety is not within limits but thery feel with confidence that they can pull it off and get the job done. We've all done it - hopefully only in our youth.
Too many guys just put in their time and get away with shit decision making so they can just move along the aviation food chain.
Too many guys are afraid of standing up for themselves because they're afraid of losing their jobs.
How many guys here have made decisions on the side of safety knowing that it would accelerate their trip to the un-employment line - I have.
Too many guys don't understand that they are responsible for setting precedents of un-safe operating that get passed down thru the generations of revolving door flight departments.
We need a regulator, in part, to protect us from ourselves.
We also need a regulator that protects the pilots from variables outside of their control.
Above all - we need a regulator that will step up to the plate when unsafe pilots and operators are identified.
Rant over.
Widow rocks.
jjj
Keep calling these guys on their bs rhetoric and bs answers to your questions.
-----------------------------------------
Cat raised an interesting issue and I'll loosely quote - "why have a regulator when the final decision is up to the PIC?"
I think part of the problem is that a lot of guys go flying even when they know safety is not within limits but thery feel with confidence that they can pull it off and get the job done. We've all done it - hopefully only in our youth.
Too many guys just put in their time and get away with shit decision making so they can just move along the aviation food chain.
Too many guys are afraid of standing up for themselves because they're afraid of losing their jobs.
How many guys here have made decisions on the side of safety knowing that it would accelerate their trip to the un-employment line - I have.
Too many guys don't understand that they are responsible for setting precedents of un-safe operating that get passed down thru the generations of revolving door flight departments.
We need a regulator, in part, to protect us from ourselves.
We also need a regulator that protects the pilots from variables outside of their control.
Above all - we need a regulator that will step up to the plate when unsafe pilots and operators are identified.
Rant over.
Widow rocks.
jjj
And that is the fault of the regulator?Too many guys just put in their time and get away with shit decision making so they can just move along the aviation food chain..
The regulator makes the regulatons and sets the standards. The onus ultimately is on the operator to follow the rules. If you put all your faith in the regulator to keep you safe then I don't want to fly with your organization.We need a regulator, in part, to protect us from ourselves.
Do you expect TC to put a guy in each cockpit to hold the pilot's hand? Should each company have an on-site TC inspector? What level of scrutiny is acceptable before it becomes harrassment?
Operators need to foremost take personal responsibility for following the rules AND operating safely.
Sounds like a job for SMS.Too many guys don't understand that they are responsible for setting precedents of un-safe operating that get passed down thru the generations of revolving door flight departments.
One other thing, yes there are problems all over the industry that need improvement. Aviation safety is one of those things that responsible regulators understand requires constant improvement. Yes, even the airline segment neeeds improvement but by no means is it the most critical. 703 ops are in critical condition and need the most attention. I have absolutely no issue with stepping on a 704 or 705 airplane in Canada. I do alot of research on 703 before I step on board.
I have stated before that I support widow. This issue I'm addressing here is that she often implies that our overall system is not one of the best in the world. It is.
CID,
My point was that when it comes to finger pointing we must not only look at TC but within our own ranks as pilots.
Rules are useless without some form of reasonable enforcement. Many times TC has turned a blind eye on pilots who have gone to them to report unsafe work practices and CARS violations.
You ask a great question about what level of scrutiny becomes harassment - I don't know. What I do know is that the safety problem in aviation must be tackled on two fronts - from TC - and from the lowly pilots. When they meet in the middle we will have an industry we can be proud of. SMS certainly is part of that evolution.
jjj
My point was that when it comes to finger pointing we must not only look at TC but within our own ranks as pilots.
Rules are useless without some form of reasonable enforcement. Many times TC has turned a blind eye on pilots who have gone to them to report unsafe work practices and CARS violations.
You ask a great question about what level of scrutiny becomes harassment - I don't know. What I do know is that the safety problem in aviation must be tackled on two fronts - from TC - and from the lowly pilots. When they meet in the middle we will have an industry we can be proud of. SMS certainly is part of that evolution.
jjj
One more thing,
I agree that 703 is in situation critical. 704 and 705 are pretty good.
However there are examples in recent memory (JetsGone) when crap 705 operations are allowed to slip through the cracks.
Thanks for nothing TC - you sure got ballsy after they went tits up.
jjj
I agree that 703 is in situation critical. 704 and 705 are pretty good.
However there are examples in recent memory (JetsGone) when crap 705 operations are allowed to slip through the cracks.
Thanks for nothing TC - you sure got ballsy after they went tits up.
jjj
I question how the regulator can apply "pilot error" to this accident when the engine has not yet been recovered. No matter what the regulator may imply, if all of the available information is not yet recovered, a final answer cannot be determined.
For those complaining against Widow, where is this great pilot solidarity that allows one of your own to be listed in the "pilot error" column, when all of the facts are not known? What about his family and friends? What about any of you, should you be the unfortunate one to be involved in an accident where the regulator limits the investigation due to dollars? Do you want your families to wear the stigma of "pilot error" when there is any shred of information available which might show the difficulty you were in? We have seen too much of this is past history.
For those of you who think aviation in this country is as safe as you seem to think it may be, I agree with Hap, why are you so concerned about the system being investigated? If it is as great as you seem to imply, there should be nothing to worry about.
Though our fight is mainly against TC, after 45 years in this business, I know that there is a core element within TC who see it for what it has become and who know the real answers about air safety. Their reasons for not speaking up are their own and they have to live with themselves.
When people get on about SMS, I wonder where the SMS/HF thinking is in TC when their own director is being questioned about allegations of pressuring elements of the industry, for daring to talk. That is just the tip of the iceberg.
Keep it up Widow, as long as that engine remains on the bottom, nobody has the right to make a final conclusion. I hope for the sake of anyone involved in a situation like this in the future, that somebody has the balls to speak up for them.
Regards
carholme
For those complaining against Widow, where is this great pilot solidarity that allows one of your own to be listed in the "pilot error" column, when all of the facts are not known? What about his family and friends? What about any of you, should you be the unfortunate one to be involved in an accident where the regulator limits the investigation due to dollars? Do you want your families to wear the stigma of "pilot error" when there is any shred of information available which might show the difficulty you were in? We have seen too much of this is past history.
For those of you who think aviation in this country is as safe as you seem to think it may be, I agree with Hap, why are you so concerned about the system being investigated? If it is as great as you seem to imply, there should be nothing to worry about.
Though our fight is mainly against TC, after 45 years in this business, I know that there is a core element within TC who see it for what it has become and who know the real answers about air safety. Their reasons for not speaking up are their own and they have to live with themselves.
When people get on about SMS, I wonder where the SMS/HF thinking is in TC when their own director is being questioned about allegations of pressuring elements of the industry, for daring to talk. That is just the tip of the iceberg.
Keep it up Widow, as long as that engine remains on the bottom, nobody has the right to make a final conclusion. I hope for the sake of anyone involved in a situation like this in the future, that somebody has the balls to speak up for them.
Regards
carholme
Canada does have one of the safest systems in the world. There is no garauntee that it will stay that way without people like Widow though. It always needed improvement too, is that Preuss' biggest concern, or is protecting his posterior foremost?I know a lot of sensible honest people at TC and I don't see any legitimate reason for them to have to bite their tongues when they see a problem, that can only mean a deterioration of a system that already has its faults. I have seen TSB reach some pretty dubious conclusions, even some that were later proven to be wrong, pilot error was usually the first finding in these cases. Keep shaking that tree Widow, we'll see what falls out.
bronson - you can be in a hurry or you can be in an airplane, but don't ever get into both at once
