Well said, Cat.
Widow, please ignore CID, he has nothing positive to offer.
I still say his hour hand goes round faster than his minute hand.
Following his theories, nobody would ever get airborne.
Widow writes another letter
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
Actually in this discourse I think it's CAT that is offering little. CID posts are non-inflammatory and (although we may disagree on intrepatation and practical application) are grounded in the current regs. Cat you are losing credibility with me in these discussions as most of your recent posts spend more time slagging than educating.
CID asks an important question that no-one seems to want to answer. Is there a double standard in the practical application of the CARS between west coast operators and the rest of the country? If so why...and is the answer to the why, reasonable?
Sorry to hijack this......flame away if required.
CID asks an important question that no-one seems to want to answer. Is there a double standard in the practical application of the CARS between west coast operators and the rest of the country? If so why...and is the answer to the why, reasonable?
Sorry to hijack this......flame away if required.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
It breaks my heart that I'm losing credibility with someone posting under an assumed name.Cat you are losing credibility with me in these discussions as most of your recent posts spend more time slagging than educating.
That is a fair question and should be answered.CID asks an important question that no-one seems to want to answer. Is there a double standard in the practical application of the CARS between west coast operators and the rest of the country? If so why...and is the answer to the why, reasonable?
But I'm going to let someone from TC or someone currently flying in this area answer it so I don't annoy you pushyboss.
By the way would being a pushyboss add to safety or maybe intimidate young pilots resulting in unneeded stress?
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.
Cat,
As expected two thirds of your response were personal while only a third actually adressed the issue (of which you deflected). As oppposed to offering your insight (which is significant) you chose to subtly attack based on an internet pseudonym.
I withdraw from this conversation as I will not let the importance of the questions be detracted from, as a result of being the lowest common denominator.
As expected two thirds of your response were personal while only a third actually adressed the issue (of which you deflected). As oppposed to offering your insight (which is significant) you chose to subtly attack based on an internet pseudonym.
I withdraw from this conversation as I will not let the importance of the questions be detracted from, as a result of being the lowest common denominator.
CID asks an important question that no-one seems to want to answer. Is there a double standard in the practical application of the CARS between west coast operators and the rest of the country? If so why...and is the answer to the why, reasonable?
If there is a double standard, then it is TCCA that condones it. That being said, I highly doubt the west coast is the only part of Canada that has highly variable weather/terrain configurations, and I expect they fly in similar circumstances in many other areas. Perhaps some of the posters in the "north" or on the east coast could verify this.
Certainly these flying conditions require much more skill, especially in handling emergencies, than flying in "safer" conditions. But a few fog patches (as there were on the day in question) does not make for "unsafe" conditions. You can't exactly plan where your engine is going to fail.
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
Hence the VFR limitation for commercial single engine airplanes of this type.You can't exactly plan where your engine is going to fail.
From the information provided widow, I think "a few fog patches" doesn't adequately describe conditions where several (more than 20) people "heard" the engine sputter as the airplane flew overhead but nobody "saw" it.
Widow wrote:This may clarify somewhat from the TSB letter:
Weather in the area was variable with respect to cloud bases, the presence of fog, wind speed, and water conditions. However, based on the pilot's stated concern that he may not be able to land at Frances Bay on the outbound leg of the trip, it is reasonable to conclude that weather represented a risk factor for his flight either enroute or in the vicinity of Frances Bay. Weather in the vicinity of Knight Inlet was reported to be good for visual flight.
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
If you are flying around on a beautiful sunny day like today is, on the coast, and you are flying across to Victoria where you can see both sides and then some (Victoria is about 40 miles and Mt. Baker is over a hundred) and the engine quits halfway; or you are crossing over Saltspring Island on the way to Sidney, looking for a goat and the engine quits?
There is not always a happy ending to a machine failure. But usually there is, that's why we still use them. Properly maintained, they don't quit very much.
Please stop all this claptrap about West Coast weather - sometimes its good, sometimes its not. You get outflow winds, Sou'easters, local fog, tides and currents, mountain effects, cold, heat, heavy rain, hot, still days. Sometimes you have to go slower than you planned, or take a different route. Sometimes you might even have to step-taxi a while, or slower. None of this is a problem with experienced pilots, properly maintained aircraft and a functioning communications system. Its what we do out here and the rules don't need to be changed.
There must be a thousand flights a day on this entire coast and they are how people get around out here.
The weather didn't fail, the glassy water didn't fail, the flight rules didn't fail, what failed in Widow's 'scenario,' is that nobody outside 'her' a/c did their jobs properly: The owner was too cheap to maintain the a/c, the mechanics fudged the repairs that were done, the dispatcher had not been trained (and wasn't even there), the dispatcher did not know how to deal with an overdue a/c or how RCC works, the Ops Manager didn't manage, there was no communications, etc. etc.
Not rules about flying or weather, but rules about oversight and training and audits and maintenance, all in place but never enforced.
Its sad but true, not the first owner that has tried to run a business under-funded and under-maintained and has subsequently killed someone (or many). Just don't blame this on the pilot or the weather.
There is not always a happy ending to a machine failure. But usually there is, that's why we still use them. Properly maintained, they don't quit very much.
Please stop all this claptrap about West Coast weather - sometimes its good, sometimes its not. You get outflow winds, Sou'easters, local fog, tides and currents, mountain effects, cold, heat, heavy rain, hot, still days. Sometimes you have to go slower than you planned, or take a different route. Sometimes you might even have to step-taxi a while, or slower. None of this is a problem with experienced pilots, properly maintained aircraft and a functioning communications system. Its what we do out here and the rules don't need to be changed.
There must be a thousand flights a day on this entire coast and they are how people get around out here.
The weather didn't fail, the glassy water didn't fail, the flight rules didn't fail, what failed in Widow's 'scenario,' is that nobody outside 'her' a/c did their jobs properly: The owner was too cheap to maintain the a/c, the mechanics fudged the repairs that were done, the dispatcher had not been trained (and wasn't even there), the dispatcher did not know how to deal with an overdue a/c or how RCC works, the Ops Manager didn't manage, there was no communications, etc. etc.
Not rules about flying or weather, but rules about oversight and training and audits and maintenance, all in place but never enforced.
Its sad but true, not the first owner that has tried to run a business under-funded and under-maintained and has subsequently killed someone (or many). Just don't blame this on the pilot or the weather.
"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."
If the flight was dispatched into VFR minima, I would hardly call that "good" weather and vis, rather I would call it "acceptable" (and beyond my personal limits).Lommer, remember this was supposed to be a VFR flight. That means good weather and good visibility.
Unless you fly with plenty of extra fuel, well under gross weight, on sunny days without a cloud in the sky, on almost-new aircraft all the time, then I'd say you are flying with complicating factors. Deciding when you have too many complicating factors is an important part of being a pilot.As far as the rest of the complicating factors go, they are possibilities even with the engine running. Does the water get glassier or choppier and the wind get windier when an engine quits? How can it be "extremely rare" to have no complicating factors on a VFR flight? Shouldn't the same apply to normal landings as well? Except for the oil on the windscreen of course.
Flying a VFR flight in IMC is illegal, so I'd hardly call it typical. As for dispatching a flight when a water landing would be hazardous. I don't really find fault with that. Would you dispatch a flight over mountainous terrain or dense forest where a suitable forced landing site isn't readily available? If so I feel it's a very similar situation; If not you may as well shut down half of Canadian Aviation.Does that mean dispatching a VFR flight in IMC or when a water landing would be hazardous because of water conditions is typical?
Finally, these are the last words I will say on this subject because I do feel that Widow and Cat are correct in their assertion that circumstances before the crash and surrounding its response are what made this a fatal incident that claimed the lives of 4(?) men.
Thanks for verifying that.Flying a VFR flight in IMC is illegal
Really? Are you sure you meant to say that?As for dispatching a flight when a water landing would be hazardous. I don't really find fault with that.
Yep.Would you dispatch a flight over mountainous terrain or dense forest where a suitable forced landing site isn't readily available?
CID, you would dispatch a flight over mountainous terrain or dense forest where a forced landing is sure to cause significant damage and possibly injury or death, but you wouldn't dispatch a flight over water where a forced landing would have similar results?
Last edited by Lommer on Wed May 09, 2007 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
snaproll20
- Rank 7
- Posts: 636
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:50 pm
Does the water get glassier or choppier and the wind get windier when an engine quits? How can it be "extremely rare" to have no complicating factors on a VFR flight?
This is lunacy.
Anyone who has flown in coastal areas knows that even on a perfectly clear day it is "extremely rare" to not have complicating factors. i.e. It is perfectly common to hit patches of sea fret. (and more complicating factors.)
I have seen airports equipped with ILS very difficult to get into within 5 minutes of them putting out an ATIS that is perfectly clear, and the forecast is for continuing the same. How do you plan for that?
Also, it is perfectly possible for a pilot to have a clear view of the ground but be invisible to ground observers, only hundreds of feet below. Especially in coastal areas. You can navigate forever (legally) without being able to land .....unless your engine quits. You are not flying above an undercast. You are visual, you are VFR. If your egine quits, you have an imminent appointment with the surface....whatever it may be. Choices become limited. You do the best you can. With oil on your windshield, the odds against you are increased.
xsbank had it right. This is not about visual versus CID's notions.
It is about the responsibilities of everyone involved. We all keep forgetting in our various 'wisdoms' that all the men got out of the aircraft.
If the Beaver had not sank, experts say it could have floated for hours.
Just look at how close help could have been. Especially the sailboater who actually went out in the area through concern, and the person who thought they heard cries for help.
That is Widow's anguish.
Arnie doubtless did the best he possibly could. It can be said that he did not 'crash' the plane, otherwise, nobody would have got out.
This is lunacy.
Anyone who has flown in coastal areas knows that even on a perfectly clear day it is "extremely rare" to not have complicating factors. i.e. It is perfectly common to hit patches of sea fret. (and more complicating factors.)
I have seen airports equipped with ILS very difficult to get into within 5 minutes of them putting out an ATIS that is perfectly clear, and the forecast is for continuing the same. How do you plan for that?
Also, it is perfectly possible for a pilot to have a clear view of the ground but be invisible to ground observers, only hundreds of feet below. Especially in coastal areas. You can navigate forever (legally) without being able to land .....unless your engine quits. You are not flying above an undercast. You are visual, you are VFR. If your egine quits, you have an imminent appointment with the surface....whatever it may be. Choices become limited. You do the best you can. With oil on your windshield, the odds against you are increased.
xsbank had it right. This is not about visual versus CID's notions.
It is about the responsibilities of everyone involved. We all keep forgetting in our various 'wisdoms' that all the men got out of the aircraft.
If the Beaver had not sank, experts say it could have floated for hours.
Just look at how close help could have been. Especially the sailboater who actually went out in the area through concern, and the person who thought they heard cries for help.
That is Widow's anguish.
Arnie doubtless did the best he possibly could. It can be said that he did not 'crash' the plane, otherwise, nobody would have got out.
Some people just need to be heard xsbank. Valueless as his rambling is, this is CID's chosen venue to do so. There is no discussing anything with the likes of him as his intention is not to discuss but to antagonize.xsbank wrote:That's it - I give up. CID you're relentless. You can have the thread, the forum, even the whole site but nobody is going to play with you.
I am afraid his absence is just a fond memory.
Lommer, I think you missed one of the subtle nuances of my answer. I have no problem launching IFR at night in the winter over terrain where a safe landing is impossible if the right equipment is used. Like a 777.CID, you would dispatch a flight over mountainous terrain or dense forest where a forced landing is sure to cause significant damage and possibly injury or death, but you wouldn't dispatch a flight over water where a forced landing would have similar results?
Now lets talk about a VFR Beaver on floats. It better be VMC at the point of departure, destination and all point in between or I ain't going. Furthermore if I have information that sea conditions are bad I might reconsider launching. If information isn't available, I'm gonna make sure I have fuel to come back at any point.
xsbank,
No need for the dramatics. Calm down and feel free to participate. It's just an anonymous forum. We're not forming regualtions or fixing world hunger here. There's a normal process that all these long threads go though to refine the discussion. Unfortunately many posts are made in haste and while the poster is in an emotional state. That tends to result in a bit of back and forth to resolve what the person "really" meant to say.
snaproll,
The discussions surrounding widow's huband's accident and his tragic death have raised alot of questions about 703 operators and in particular operators on the west coast.
I've learned alot reading and discussing the various issues. It seems that the concensus among west coast operators is that flying there is inherently dangerous because of the conditions. They are particularly dangerous when they attempt to provide regular service n those challenging conditions using equipment within the 703 single engine VFR constraints.
It's rather obvious to me that 703 ops in the west coast will continue to result in more accidents until operators start using equipment that is more suited to the challenging conditions or raise their personal dispatch comfort zones. Maybe weather that is "marginal but doable" should be "marginal so since I'll be in a Beaver I'm not going".
As for the question of all the "external" forced that widow feels caused her husband's eventual death, I think there is certainly merit in investigating those factors and trying to improve those processes but I have a tough time discussing recovery following an accident when there are so many unresoloved issues related to the cause of the accident.
Does the answer to high accident rates lie in improving SAR and accident recovery? Does adding ambulances do anything to curb injuries caused by drunk drivers?
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Yeh, some of his ideas are stunning....Some people just need to be heard xsbank. Valueless as his rambling is, this is CID's chosen venue to do so. There is no discussing anything with the likes of him as his intention is not to discuss but to antagonize.
If the DeHavilland Beaver is not suited to west coast float flying why didn't CID let all these operators know this before they bought an unsuitable float plane for flying off the water out here? Maybe he should get a hold of Yearwood and point out where the problem really is...wrong airplane for the job.It's rather obvious to me that 703 ops in the west coast will continue to result in more accidents until operators start using equipment that is more suited to the challenging conditions
The more of this stuff I read from CID the more amazed I am at the lengths he will go to to aggrivate people. Unless of course he actually thinks that way.
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.
No, but investigating and making recommendations/corrections regarding ALL the links in the chain, or holes in the swiss cheese, often result in something known as "tombstone safety". How do you know there is nothing to learn if you don't LOOK at ALL the causes?CID wrote:Does the answer to high accident rates lie in improving SAR and accident recovery? Does adding ambulances do anything to curb injuries caused by drunk drivers?
Something has been made better. Even though the TSB claims "pilot error" and does not "admit" engine failure, TCCA came out with the R-985 cylinder SDA in February 2007. This would never have happened if our families had not persisted with our "claim" of a cylinder failure. If you check the SDRs on these, you'll find (as I did) they almost always result in oil spray and according to the Beaver experts who viewed the wreckage, the same oil pattern is usually evident. There had been a growing number of cylinder hold down stud failures that no-one had recognized, until we (or one of our experts) pointed it out. Perhaps if the TSB had done a knowledge-based analysis immediately after the wreck was recovered, this information would have been brought to light almost a year earlier.
But, again, it wasn't the failed engine that killed these five men. What did kill them, needs to be addressed.
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
Agreed.But, again, it wasn't the failed engine that killed these five men. What did kill them, needs to be addressed.
Actually my intent is not to aggrevate. I just like to discuss things thorougly and logically. It's only good sense to ask questions when you discuss things and I don't stop at the easy questions.The more of this stuff I read from CID the more amazed I am at the lengths he will go to to aggrivate people.
Speaking of easy questions, I notice Cat Driver that you don't ever bother anwering questions I direct to you. Yah, your excuse is going to be something like you don't want to lower yourself or some such thing but my guess is that answering my questions will only validate my statements or you'd just rather stick to the personal attacks and insults. Or maybe its a little of both?
-
Mitch Cronin
- Rank 8
- Posts: 914
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:15 am
- Location: Right beside my dog again...
Some of us see that CID... Agreement is often signalled by a nod or a grin or something such-like... too bad you can't always see that.CID wrote:Actually my intent is not to aggrevate. I just like to discuss things thorougly and logically. It's only good sense to ask questions when you discuss things and I don't stop at the easy questions.
Honestly though, I think it may be that the folks who get really ticked at you just haven't given enough thought to the need to find answers.
-
snaproll20
- Rank 7
- Posts: 636
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:50 pm
CID
"I have a tough time discussing recovery following an accident when there are so many unresoloved issues related to the cause of the accident. "
This strikes me as a complete contradiction. If you are having a tough time, CID, why don't you use your influence to get TSB to raise the damned engine!!!!!! That should resolve one very critical issue.
If you believe the engine does not require being raised, then you have pinned the accident on the pilot. And that is slanderous. You have pestered the heck out of everyone, trying to pin this on the pilot. You believe that nobody should be flying single engine aircraft on the coast.
As Cat Driver has pointed out, tens of thousands of pilot hours (actually, hundreds of thousands) have been spent using personal experience to SAFELY conduct flights. Is there risk? Yes, absolutely. But risk is attached to all types of flying. It is also attached to driving vehicles. At least with flying you are not likely (statistically) to be run into by another driver. The Beaver has been out flying now for fifty years, or thereabouts.
Statistically, it is safe. Things become less safe when other factors are thrown in. You feel that a flight should not be undertaken if sea conditions are not perfectly suitable for an imagined forced landing. Does putting your sock on the wrong foot in the morning first qualify for cancelling the day? If you are flying over the Trans Canada, should you plan your departure for a time when crossing it coincides with reduced traffic congestion so you will have a place to land?...just in case....
Should B-777 crews apply the same prohibition to flight if they are planning to fly over hostile terrain or weather....remember, there are only two engines.
I just cannot see you lasting five minutes in the real world. You would be a real Jonah in the flight planning room and freak everyone out.
"I have a tough time discussing recovery following an accident when there are so many unresoloved issues related to the cause of the accident. "
This strikes me as a complete contradiction. If you are having a tough time, CID, why don't you use your influence to get TSB to raise the damned engine!!!!!! That should resolve one very critical issue.
If you believe the engine does not require being raised, then you have pinned the accident on the pilot. And that is slanderous. You have pestered the heck out of everyone, trying to pin this on the pilot. You believe that nobody should be flying single engine aircraft on the coast.
As Cat Driver has pointed out, tens of thousands of pilot hours (actually, hundreds of thousands) have been spent using personal experience to SAFELY conduct flights. Is there risk? Yes, absolutely. But risk is attached to all types of flying. It is also attached to driving vehicles. At least with flying you are not likely (statistically) to be run into by another driver. The Beaver has been out flying now for fifty years, or thereabouts.
Statistically, it is safe. Things become less safe when other factors are thrown in. You feel that a flight should not be undertaken if sea conditions are not perfectly suitable for an imagined forced landing. Does putting your sock on the wrong foot in the morning first qualify for cancelling the day? If you are flying over the Trans Canada, should you plan your departure for a time when crossing it coincides with reduced traffic congestion so you will have a place to land?...just in case....
Should B-777 crews apply the same prohibition to flight if they are planning to fly over hostile terrain or weather....remember, there are only two engines.
I just cannot see you lasting five minutes in the real world. You would be a real Jonah in the flight planning room and freak everyone out.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Snaproll I was alluding to the fact that individual pilots have flown tens of thousands of accident free hours in these areas of aviation.As Cat Driver has pointed out, tens of thousands of pilot hours (actually, hundreds of thousands)
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.
-
snaproll20
- Rank 7
- Posts: 636
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:50 pm
-
binderdundat
- Rank 0
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 5:18 pm
Yet not one came forward in time to save these souls? It was February and their only chance of survival was to be removed from the frigid water within minutes, yet all twenty people heard either choking, sputtering, cutting inand out, splashing of aircraft or cries for help yet reported nothing until the media came to town. I find this unconscionable! … or a convenient way to get their proverbial 15 seconds of fame.Widow wrote:CID, if there wasn't something wrong with the engine, what do you think the "coughing" and "sputtering" and "cutting in and out" sounds were? These sounds were heard by AT LEAST twenty different people.
