W-Five

snaproll20 · Post by **snaproll20** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 4:27 pm

It really is tiresome and disturbing to read some of the snide twisting of circumstances and dumb suppositions aired by at least one person on this subject.

To me, after so many years in aviation, and also reading about numerous pioneers, wartime pilots, and personally living with legendary bush pilots that the term "pilot solidarity" has a very clear meaning..........

It is the brotherhood of airmen that shares experiences, laments losses and after analyzing such losses, vows never to repeat them.

It sure to hell is NOT "should all other pilots cover it up?" (Idiot!!!)

We see the brotherhood sentiment particularly in Widow's case, and look how many people got on the thread about Rowdy. Using the above twisted logic, I suppose one of us should have visited Rowdy in hospital and finished him off, just "to cover it up". (sorry Rowdy....! Hope you are better.)

Anyone with any knowledge of coastlines knows that the weather can change very rapidly and in very small areas. A dazzling VFR day can be a total fog a half mile away. I have seen this in numerous places. Pilots on the West coast deal with this every day. Naturally, there are pressures to get the job done, some self-inflicted. That is not to say that conditions are not flyable. Each pilot must make their own choice, sometimes several times a day. It is called "experience". Many of us have done flying that most people would shake their heads at, but we knew what we were doing, knew it was within the aircraft and the pilot's capabilities, so it was done as a matter of routine.

Spouting forth on weather possibilities in this instance is therefore speculative, non-conclusive and a form of self-aggrandisement which attempts to tarnish the reputation of a fallen comrade. So why do it?

carholme · Post by **carholme** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:08 pm

Snap;

Well said, you clearly understood what I meant.

I did not know the pilot concerned but for me there is not enough clear information to indicate that he, in any way should have doubts cast on his integrity or his flying decisions.

Regards

carholme

CID · Post by **CID** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:25 pm

Snaproll,

Thanks for clarifying carholme's statement. I have a question for you though.

Do you think commercial single engine VFR ops should be prohibited or restricted in some way on the west coast and comparable coastal/moutainous regions? It appears to me that because of the challenging conditions that exist maybe a different minimum standard is in order.

Maybe an IFR equipped Twin Otter with satcom is the appropriate "minimum" ride for these commercial missions. Maybe its time we graduate from airplanes like the Beaver as the standard. What percentage of the time do you think these single engine airplanes are spending in IMC or even in what you call "flyable" conditions?

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:25 pm

oldenoughtoknowbetter wrote:
CLguy wrote:The one thing I have a hard time understanding and hopefully someone can clarify it, is how did the engine end up being torn off the aircraft if it wasn't a catastrophic landing. That being the case, regardless of the condition or age of the floats, they would never have remained intact during such a landing so I think arguing about the float maintenance is a mute point. Am I missing something here?
Not in my mind, however I left that one alone.....seems those that "question" get the sarcastic "expert" label pretty quick.

The engine was not torn off on impact. Filmed at the bottom of the ocean nose down in the mud, the prop still in place ... the aircraft had spent five months sinking into the silt ... when it was pulled up, the prop and engine broke free. My understanding is that much of what would have held these in place were magnesium, and would have quickly corroded underwater. The engine itself, made of steel and aluminum should remain in one peice when lifted.

Youngback · Post by **Youngback** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:40 pm

Widow, went to the bank today. Keep your chin up and good luck in your efforts.

oldenoughtoknowbetter · Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:47 pm

snaproll20 wrote: Anyone with any knowledge of coastlines knows that the weather can change very rapidly and in very small areas. A dazzling VFR day can be a total fog a half mile away. I have seen this in numerous places. Pilots on the West coast deal with this every day. Naturally, there are pressures to get the job done, some self-inflicted. That is not to say that conditions are not flyable. Each pilot must make their own choice, sometimes several times a day. It is called "experience". Many of us have done flying that most people would shake their heads at, but we knew what we were doing, knew it was within the aircraft and the pilot's capabilities, so it was done as a matter of routine.

I'll give you credit snap for big set of kahoonas to actually put in public print what actually goes on. I have heard these precise comments regarding what is "normal" and "expected normal ops" on the coast. Perhaps explains why many high time, flat land easterners don't last long in the coastal experience.

I'll even hazard an assumption that the above quoted statement does indeed come from "coastal experience" and has the aura of complacancy brought on by years of flying in less than legal limits "as a matter of routine".

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:48 pm

Just so everyone understands how important that call to SAR would have been ... from anyone - a sound witness, MJM, the FSS, etc., I received this today.

I write this with a heavy heart filled with anger and guilt.

Like millions of other people, I watched W5 and was dumfounded by what I heard.

On that sad morning, my daughter and I were living on our sailboat in Heriot Bay, I was up early and took pictures of the ferry in a fog bank, it was calm and later I distinctly heard the Beaver go over my head, it was sputtering and I knew there was a problem. So much so that I asked another boater if he had heard the same thing. He had. The plane got quieter and the "miss" seemed to disappear.

It bothered me enough that I left my moorage with the sailboat and headed out towards Read Island, which is where I thought the plane was heading. I roamed around the harbour and Sutil for about an hour before I had to return. There was no traffic on the VHF and I had nothing to report, I was convinced I had imagined it all and my daughter wanted to get ashore. We never headed towards Village Bay or the Breton Islands and we were under power, not sail, so we would not have heard anything.

The reason I can't sleep is that we had our boat within sight of the crash and nobody told us, we had a 38ft sailboat in the water and no mayday was ever issued by MJM, it leaves me sick. The thought of them getting out will never leave my mind.

Nobody asked anybody on the wharf if they had seen anything and we moved soon after, we're now in Montréal and W5 was the first time I found out the truth, until then I had assumed they had died on impact.

I knew Arnie and being from Montréal we always said hi when our paths crossed, I am left without words, when I think that if MJM had taken responsibility and made one lousy call, a hundred people would have been on the water and this would have been a story for the grand kids, told by the survivors.

I am so sorry I did not stay out that day, but there was no reason to, the Coast Guard, RCMP, SAR, even the new water taxis at the HBI all were in the dark, nobody had a clue anything was wrong. Except for the people directly under that Beaver and none of us knew what we had heard.

angry inch · Post by **angry inch** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:27 pm

Hello,

I live on Quadra Island, and also fly out of the Campbell River Spit. If the person's testimony in Widow's quote is accurate ( which we have no reason to believe otherwise), then Arnie and his passengers were most likely on a northbound climb out of the spit en route to Frances Bay (initial destination), which would take them directly over Heriot Bay (where the sailboat was moored) and not around the south end of Quadra, as was suggested earlier. If there was an engine problem, that would mean that they would have to attempt a forced approach,descending into the calm, foggy conditions described by the boater. A nightmare scenario.

snaproll20 · Post by **snaproll20** » Tue May 01, 2007 6:08 am

oldenoughtoknowbetter.

Thanks for reminding me about complacency.
It tends to creep up on a person.
Sometimes the aerial gods remind us (me) of this in a gentle fashion, like a small nudge.

I try to stay faithful so I can continue to worship at their feet for my continued salvation at the end of each flight.

I shall remember your handle next time I contemplate something untoward.

Cheers, Snaproll20

CID

I am not going to get into a discussion with you about single engine, safety, or anything else. Your question reinforces my view of you as a thoroughly indoctrinated bureaucrat who would legislate how people should wipe their ass, given the chance.

CID · Post by **CID** » Tue May 01, 2007 6:24 am

Snaproll20,

We all understand that this tragic incident can bring out a great deal of emotion, and there is strong evidence of that in your replies.

I think my questions were valid but I also understand that it may be a little to close to the heart for some people.

The bottom line is that there is something seriously wrong on the west coast when generally people feel that flying around in the .. in a Beaver is OK.

The letter widow provided in her last post is further evidence from a person who "distinctly heard the Beaver go over my head" but didn't see it. Don't you see a problem there?

flyinphil · Post by **flyinphil** » Tue May 01, 2007 6:38 am

CID wrote:Snaproll20,

The bottom line is that there is something seriously wrong on the west coast when generally people feel that flying around in the .. in a Beaver is OK.

CID, when the wx is down on the coast, nobody is out taking extraordinary risks. The coast is full of pockets of low stratus and fog that to an observer on the ground or in a boat may look like a solid layer but in reality may just be a small area of localized wx.

CID · Post by **CID** » Tue May 01, 2007 7:00 am

CID, when the wx is down on the coast, nobody is out taking extraordinary risks.

flyinphil,

Does that mean they are operating within the regulations or does that mean they are applying what is generally refered to as "common sense" in lieu of respecting the regulations?

By the way, the question isn't meant to be a challenge or an insult. It's a serious question.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Tue May 01, 2007 7:08 am

CID, there are times when legal does not mean safe. And there are times when, safe may not be legal. Circumstances, alter cases. Safe is always good. Legal is usually good. You do follow? This is just a general comment, and has nothing to do with the accident int this case...or maybe it does..I wasn't there. I've seen "legal" VFR days that can be killers, and I've seen almost as many "marginal" (or below) VFR days that are no problems at all.

CID · Post by **CID** » Tue May 01, 2007 7:18 am

Doc,

I generally agree with what you say but I think if you make it a habit to accept operating outside the regulations, it will catch up with you.

If you fly in "marginal" but "flyable" VFR weather (terms used on this forum) maybe once or twice a year, chances are you'll live to be an "old" pilot and not be recorded in history as one of those "bold" pilots.

From what I understand, flying in clag is the norm on the west coast.

duCapo · Post by **duCapo** » Tue May 01, 2007 7:20 am

The one thing I have a hard time understanding and hopefully someone can clarify it, is how did the engine end up being torn off the aircraft if it wasn't a catastrophic landing.

Magnesium+ Aluminum= corrosion. Broke off at the blower case by the look of it.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Tue May 01, 2007 7:28 am

CID, I'm not advocating operating outside the regulations. Far from it. Just don't be lulled into a sense of false security thinking that you are always safe operating inside the regulations. You may, for example have VFR vis, but as soon as you head into the setting sun, that vis is gone...and there you are. I've lost that "warm fuzzy" feeling several times, and been well withing the regs. The "line" drawn in the sand, can get a little "fuzzy" at times.

phillyfan · Post by **phillyfan** » Tue May 01, 2007 7:32 am

The Beaver attitude indicator operates off an engine driven Vacuum pump. No engine=no vacuum= no attitude indicator. No way you glide down through fog without an attitude indicator and keep it upright.

Meatloaf · Post by **Meatloaf** » Tue May 01, 2007 8:03 am

Doc, I know exactly what you are talking about and I couldn't agree more.

CID · Post by **CID** » Tue May 01, 2007 8:23 am

Doc, I understand what you're saying. It pretty much establishes why there are more 703 accidents on the west coast than in other parts of the country. They just find themselves in those predicaments more often.

As I asked before, is it a matter of using the wrong equipment for the job? If the chances of encountering bad weather is so high, should we be allowing SEIFR over there?

phillyfan,

Excellent point. I was going to bring that up earlier but I couldn't verify for sure if that particular Beaver had some sort of upgrade. It would be difficult to install an electric unit due to the lack of depth behind that panel.

Either way, a single instrument wouldn't fix anything. A single failure could still cause total loss of attitude indication.

The pucker factor in launching in a Beaver with even a slight possibilty of weather on the west coast seems to be increasing as we talk about this.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Tue May 01, 2007 8:31 am

CID, I don't think SEIFR is the problem. It's more the VFR airplane, with the VFR equipment, suddenly becoming IFR. SEIFR is a horse of a different colour! You'd never get a Beaver approved for IFR with passengers in Canada! Not in a commercial operation at any rate. It's going to be hard enough to keep that distinction for the Caravan, long term.

CID · Post by **CID** » Tue May 01, 2007 8:47 am

Doc,

I reread my last post and I think I mis-fired. I didn’t mean to say SEIFR. I meant to say commercial VFR that so commonly results in illegal SEIFR.

I totally agree that the Beaver will never be approved for commercial (legal) SEIFR.

niss · Post by **niss** » Tue May 01, 2007 8:50 am

Why would the beaver never be approved for IFR?

I thought all you need was second Gyro, etc.

Meatloaf · Post by **Meatloaf** » Tue May 01, 2007 8:59 am

They are referring to commercial operations. To fly passengers in a single engine aircraft in IFR in a commercial operation it has to be a factory manufactured turbine airplane (ie Caravan, PC-12). You can fly a Beaver IFR as much as you want privately provided it has the proper equipment.

Meatloaf · Post by **Meatloaf** » Tue May 01, 2007 9:00 am