Weather and float flying.

[Cat Driver]

I was reading on another thread where some people claim that the Beaver that sank and cost five lives was being flown in weather that was below legal VFR limits.

So I thought I would post what I believe was the weather at Cambell River Airport at the time of the accident, or close to the time.

SPECI CYBL 281831Z 00000KT 4SM -RA BR BKN002 OVC040 RMK SF5SC3

Bearing in mind that the airport is 350 feet above sea level and the Beaver departed the Cambell River Spit how do you arrive at the conclusion that the weather was below limits where the Beaver was being flown?

How many west coast pilots would refuse to fly in those conditions? based only on that weather observation at the airport, and what would be your reason?

[xsbank]

You would - you would know that with 0 wind and drizzle that you might expect to find low cloud here and there, certainly some glassy water (great in a boat, not so cool in a 'plane!) and otherwise, no biggy! I would go, have done, and hope to do same again!

[Over the Horn]

Wow I hate to be the guy to ask this question but doesn't a 200ft bkn layer constitute a ceiling?

[confused]

Did widow not say that the pilot climbed on top of the cloud......

[Cat Driver]

Wow I hate to be the guy to ask this question but doesn't a 200ft bkn layer constitute a ceiling?

Yes, it does.

But that observation was taken at the airport the Beaver departed the spit which I believe is still outside of the Campbell River control zone, therefore the ceiling observed in that report has no bearing on the ceiling at the spit.

I think I recall reading that there were other float planes flying from the spit at the same time as the Beaver we are discussing, would that not add credibility to the weather being legal for VFR at the time?

[CID]

We must also consider the fact that many people "heard" the Beaver and the "sputtering" engine, in some cases directly overhead but nobody claims "seeing" it. That implies that it was flying above the overcast or in the soup at the time leading to the approach to the water.

The METAR doesn't prove one way or another the weather at the time of takeoff. It could have been better or worse.

It seems rather clear to me however that needless risk is being taken by many float pilots.

[Cat Driver]

And for all you experts out there it is not illegal to fly over glassy water.

It does make it a lot easier to land on glassy water with an engine that is running though.

It is quite reasonable to believe that the pilot that was flying that Beaver had an engine failure that resulted in an unplanned glassy water landing.

And for all you experts that may not know your ass from your hand about float flying, glassy water and ceiling have no relationship to judging height over said glassy water, with bright sunlight it is still impossible to judge height over glassy water.

[Cat Driver]

It seems rather clear to me however that needless risk is being taken by many float pilots.

[Vortex_driver]

I don't know any float plane driver inluding myself, that, if they knew the area well, would'nt go.... maybe I would turn around at some point if the weather gets worse, but there is good chance that I would have gone that day...
now, legally, you need 300ft above all obstacle within a 300ft around you and if you have the experience required and the instruments required, you can fly in 1SM vis.... otherwise it's 2SM (below 1000ft AGL)
I don't know the area over there, but if the river is at least 100 ft lower than the airport, HE WAS LEGAL.
I agree with you cat, they cannot say he was illegal just with the SPECI

[Over the Horn]

Quote:
Wow I hate to be the guy to ask this question but doesn't a 200ft bkn layer constitute a ceiling?



Yes, it does.

But that observation was taken at the airport the Beaver departed the spit which I believe is still outside of the Campbell River control zone, therefore the ceiling observed in that report has no bearing on the ceiling at the spit.

AHH IC should have read a little more, too many beers last night definately legal VFR and if he had local knowledge he prob new what to expect along the route.

[Cat Driver]

I don't know any float plane driver inluding myself, that, if they knew the area well, would'nt go.... maybe I would turn around at some point if the weather gets worse, but there is good chance that I would have gone that day...

Exactly, most of us who fly this area know it very well and when you get to a point you can not safely fly you either turn around or land.


There is a very big difference between a pilot flying VFR in these conditions and someone on the ground or on a boat as far as visual reference goes.

What might be considered "flying on top " to someone on the ground and flying with safe visual reference to the surface is way different.

There will often be cloud, mist, fog or other obscuring conditions that are very local and you can fly "on top " with safe visual reference to the surface.....it is normal in this area to fly in such conditions.

We do not know what happened to that pilot and his passengers in those last few minutes of their flight, and we have no way of knowing what they went through before they died, therefore it would be only fair to give the benefit of the doubt to the pilot and until proved otherwise conclude he had an engine failure over glassy water with no or limited horizon to help him judge when to flare for the landing...it would appear from examining the floats and airframe that he came very close to a sucessful touchdown, only to have the airplane sink before rescue arrived.

I am quite frankly concerned by the lack of intrest by the authorities to look further into this.

And I am not impressed with Yearwoods position on this.

[Widow]

It is amazing how you can be there at Rebecca Spit even on a beautiful clear sunny day, hear a Beaver (or other aircraft) sounding right overhead and then flying slowly away ... and never see it.

Witnesses on the west side of Quadra saw it and said it sounded "heavy". The witnesses up at Open Bay (where my husbands backpack was also found during daylight on the accident day - and hung on a tree until the finder heard about "the body") indicated they heard a change in the sound of the aircraft (from "heavy" sounding to coughing and sputtering) ... The witness who contacted us after the W-Five airing indicated he heard the aircraft going by (he was at the HBI marina), coughing and sputtering ... and then it was quiet. The people who heard it hit the water, were on the water off Rebecca Spit, on Reid Island, and farther south down the Island.

Anybody see the picture of the sonar image of the aircraft on our website? Can anybody explain to me how the DND sonar (HMCS Whitehorse) failed to pick that up? It was exactly where the witnesses who heard it hit said they thought it was.

[confused]

catdriver,As you are on this site preaching safety all the time and telling all that nobody knows anything but you...are you saying that you condone float flying over glassy water in shitty weather?After flying the bush myself for the last 25 years (accident free)I will still go many miles away to go around,island hop,or not go.I am wondering why you are defending this accident when you come down on other ones.An engine failure over water should be no big deal,its when you stack shitty weather,glassy water,and the attitude of must get this trip done,then things go to shit.Could this trip be completed by hopping island to ilsand,follow the coast.If not why not put it off for another day.

[Cat Driver]

catdriver,As you are on this site preaching safety all the time and telling all that nobody knows anything but you...

So you take it that I think no one knows anything about safety except me?

How am I to respond rationally to you when you already have your mind made up that I am a know it all who's opinion should be suspect?

are you saying that you condone float flying over glassy water in shitty weather?After flying the bush myself for the last 25 years (accident free)I will still go many miles away to go around,island hop,or not go.

He was island hopping, check the map.

How much time do you have in that area flying floats?

And to answer your qusstion, no I do not condone wreckless or careless flying by anyone, but I am realist enough to understand that if you are flying floats in this part of the world you learn to deal with different conditions or you don't fly here for long.

and the attitude of must get this trip done,then things go to shit.Could this trip be completed by hopping island to ilsand,follow the coast.If not why not put it off for another day.

There are thousands of flights done in this area in weather that is marginal, this one ended in a fatal accident, I am not " defending" this accident, I am analyzing the possibilities and am not satisfied that it was pilot error that was the only or main cause for what happened.

After flying the bush myself for the last 25 years (accident free)I will still go many miles away to go around,island hop,or not go.

Congradulations on 25 years accident free, but once again he was island hopping and once again glassy water is a fact of life in this area and you never really know when you will find it or where.

By the way when you started your 25 years in the bush I was already half way through my career...also accident free.

Would that not maybe give credibility to my opinions on safe flying confused, or is it your opinion that I'm just a know it all that really is not up to your standards?

You want to insult me try doing it using your own name, as I do.

[marktheone]

Engine quit, plane crashed. Shitty wx was certainly a factor. What else is there to say?? My condolences Kristen.

No matter how many times you post here or any other place, talk about it, rethink it and fight about it, it's going to happen again.

These threads are like a trainwreck. I promise myself that I won't read them yet I cannot look away. Is there any miniscule peice of information on this that has not been beaten down to it's smallest detail?


Mark

[Cat Driver]

That is unfortunately quit true Mark.

But will the suvivors die from hours of exposure in the water because no one was really looking for them?

It is not like this accident happened at the north pole, it happened in a populated area a few miles from the aircrafts base and it looks like there was a breakdown in flight following and communications.

Do we want that to just be another given?

[marktheone]

It is not like this accident happened at the north pole, it happened in a populated area a few miles from the aircrafts base and it looks like there was a breakdown in flight following and communications.

That, ., is the only issue in this case. There is nothing else that has any bearing whatsoever on it. Why SAR was not called I do not know but maybe someone should ask the guy who was following.

[CD]

It is not like this accident happened at the north pole, it happened in a populated area a few miles from the aircrafts base and it looks like there was a breakdown in flight following and communications.

That, ., is the only issue in this case. There is nothing else that has any bearing whatsoever on it.

I would also throw in the lack of survival equipment, considering that only one of the occupants was wearing flotation gear...

[Widow]

maybe someone should ask the guy who was following.

No one was "following". These was a type d system. For all intents and purposes, according to TCCA, no one has to be paying attention.

I received this today:

My son is a pilot with a charter and air ambulance operation in XXX. I believe (hope) it to be a good and well run outfit, but I do still have concerns. While I understand the need for the different "numbered" types of operation which lead to different safety standards being acceptable for different passengers (there are of course commercial constraints in this huge country), it is essential that what standards there are be strictly enforced and that operators not be allowed to cut corners. When an accident does occur a true investigation should be carried out to ensure that the lessons are learned and responsibility correctly apportioned.

I believe that Transport Canada is more concerned with supporting companies than it should be. Obviously no TC staff would have jobs if they shut down too many of the rogues. "Pilot error" is often the easiest result for them to come up with whether it is the correct or entire reason for the incident.

I am prepared that someday I might have to fight to preserve my son's reputation in the face of the pressures to blame him by the bureaucracy and the money men.

Aviation in Canada uses and abuses young pilots who have to work at very low paying jobs in less than ideal conditions for usually quite some time before they can move up to bigger companies. That's ok, paying dues is fine. However, they are also subjected to pressure to pay for their jobs, their rating and they all know that despite being the lowest on the totem pole they will doubtless have to carry the can if anything goes wrong.

This could be your mother. If you cannot understand why I want the TSB to accurately report (and make reflective safety recommendations) on this accident, maybe you can understand why your mother would.

[Cat Driver]

widow, you are doing a very important service for every mother and father who has a son or daughter starting out in aviation.

I wish I could do more to help you.

[oldncold]

legal yes the cars state that in order of priority for wx a rvr then ground observation then the pilot. outside of a control zone or mf
pilot is the authority. as to the engine that could have been carb ice.
febuary cool + moist but we will never definatively know because of the end result and location.the lawyers will argue long into the next decade .

The peele island caravan re tail ice loss of control etc is another prime example of possibilities but due to the end location never to be proven.

. I always appreciate your post even if you get hot under the collar
as I approach 9000 hrs i look for ways to learn to prevent bad results

[Cat Driver]

. I always appreciate your post even if you get hot under the collar
as I approach 9000 hrs i look for ways to learn to prevent bad results

Thanks, my biggest problem with the internet is the inability to put real life expression and body language into print which quite ferquently results in my message going out with the wrong flavour so to speak.

My next biggest problem is trying to continually defend my position by having to constantly reiterate the simple fact that if nothing else I have ever accomplished in aviation it as a record of safety that is unblemished including a clean enforcement record.

How many people here have put their career on the line for safety to the point that they took the regulator on in Federal court for failure to enforce the law and I won.

Anyhow regardless of how these discussions go I refuse to lose hope that somewhere somehow people will continue to try and improve flight safety.

My opinion is that the biggest problem in aviation is the culture of letting crooked operators continue to operate and intimidate the young pilots and the stupid ones into rule breaking and flying beyond their limits. ( I am not suggesting that this accident was directly caused by intimidation.... )

It may be the pilot who has the final say in safety, but human nature is such that those in positions of power can and do intimidate pilots into rule breaking and in far to many instances it ends up in disaster.....but the companies just truck right along.

So in the final analisys who is responsible for policing the system?

[saucer_driver]

Its funny, not haha funny, but you know as pilots we make decisions to fly or not to fly and this decision often depends on how comfortable one feels with a set of conditions.....what is normal for some is not for others. I really don't think you can pin this accident on bad weather, crooked operator or pilot error...it is likely a combination of all of them plus more.

Ultimately it is the pilot who took off for the flight....he should have had a an idea as to the maintenance record of this aircraft, he probably knew the weather and he probably knew the area very well. But that is itself isnt really an answer either, just because he may have been ok with the flight or that cat was ok with the flight doesnt mean it was a good idea to do it. Not saying it was a bad one, again it would have likely been fine had the engine not failed.......Pretty hard to do a galssy water with no engine and 4 miles vis, i mean what would he have for refernece, not much......

What I would like to know is how the company maintained aircraft, what is there record like, how many hours in the past week had the pilot flown said aircraft? did he make any comments about its running......or was this just one of those 1 in a million sort of things. I think my point is that obviously more investigation has to be done.....however sadly it always falls on the shoulders of the pilot because he made that decision to go.....

Accidents rarely occur because of one error.....

[Widow]

What I would like to know is how the company maintained aircraft, what is there record like, how many hours in the past week had the pilot flown said aircraft? did he make any comments about its running......or was this just one of those 1 in a million sort of things. I think my point is that obviously more investigation has to be done.....however sadly it always falls on the shoulders of the pilot because he made that decision to go.....

Accidents rarely occur because of one error.....

Again, pilot's first official day - he had flown the plane four times in the two months of 2005. The maintenance logs said everything was a.o.k., an inspection of the wreckage revealed the maintenance logs were wrong. The engine and entire aircraft were due to go offline for a complete overhaul days after the accident.

The owner had a history of poor maintenance, poor training, poor safety standards (resulting in death) in the logging industry (determined by WorkSafe BC and the Coroner and resulting in fines steep enough to make that company go bankrupt - and sprout up under a new name - where someone died earlier this year due to a safety problem).

This was not a once in a million thing, I'm afraid.

[Cat Driver]

Accidents rarely occur because of one error.....

Exactly, there is usually extenuating or benign circumstances leading up to the event.

We may never know the real cause of this accident, but we owe it to society to try and find out as much as possible.

One thing I can say for sure and that is the 703 end of flying has always had more than its share of crooked operators and even if this was not a factor in this accident that does not change the fact we need to figure out a better way of policing the industry.