Patchwork Beaver

tofo · Post by **tofo** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:09 pm

Without scuba gear, the pilot could not have identified this deficiency

So what is your statment, Your husband should have put scuba gear on?

Dash-Ate · Post by **Dash-Ate** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:17 pm

tofo sharpen up. In this kind of case, things that are usually overlooked or even MEL'd take on a special kind of importance.
In a perfect situation none of this usually matters. But widow is not talking about an ordinary situation. Every detail must be examined - if it results in even a tiny change to say a SOP somewhere somehow, which just maybe may help someone down the line, then she is doing this industry a credit.

That is my take on it after reading what has been covered on this web site.

. . · Post by **. .** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:04 pm

tofo: You've already hold the position of forum retard. No need to go for a personal best, and one up yourself.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:05 pm

Thanks Dash-ate.

tofo - my husband was not the pilot. He was a passenger who always wore a floater coat and survived this accident uninjured - only to die several hours later because no one did a radio communication search, or contacted SAR until 3.5 hours after being made aware it was missing. If those floats had been in decent condition, it is very possible that all five men - Arnie, Dave, Fabian, Doug and Trevor (fathers, husbands, brothers, sons) - would have survived, since they all escaped the aircraft which was heard by several people when it crashed not far from several marinas and in easy distance of the Quadra-Cortez ferry which passed by ten minutes later. There is proof that the floats were going to be overhauled more than 1000 hrs before this accident - but the owner couldn't afford it. Like he couldn't afford a radio in the office.

Oh and just so you know just how deep the pilot error thing goes ... I was delving into my access to information package today, and guess what I found? An enforcement action against pilot Arnie Feast for an "Unknown" CARs infringement on February 28, 2005 - the accident date. Strangely, they closed the file in October, 2005 "No Further Action - Lack of Evidence". There is no evidence of any enforcement action against the operator, despite the fact that they neglected CARs 723.26 (2) which states: "Flight Following for a Type D system is the monitoring of a flight's progress and the notification of appropriate air operator and search-and-rescue authorities if the flight is overdue or missing." - which resulted, unquestionably, in my husbands death.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:03 am

Oh and just so you know just how deep the pilot error thing goes ... I was delving into my access to information package today, and guess what I found? An enforcement action against pilot Arnie Feast for an "Unknown" CARs infringement on February 28, 2005 - the accident date. Strangely, they closed the file in October, 2005 "No Further Action - Lack of Evidence".

How did they let that slip by widow?

Generally these things are blacked out so as to protect their decision makers in the top management.

Thank God I no longer have to depend on earning a living in Canada in aviation.

I am waiting to see if Preuss gets the ax in the near future and then we will see if Dave Nowzek gets his dream of being the top power broker in TCCA.

If he does then aviation in Canada will truly be something to hide your head in shame from.

You should be proud to live in arguably the worst managed region in Canada under the leadreship of Nowzek, a dishonest corrupt thug...just imagine losing Preuss and gaining Nowzek.

Makes me ashamed for Canadian aviation.

By the way widow, I lost all my in messages in Outlook Exress in one fearless click of my mouse...I don't have your phone number anymore because it is somewhere in my hard drive hiding where I can't find it..

..please call me something has come up we need to discuss.

.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:05 am

Cat Driver wrote: How did they let that slip by widow?

Generally these things are blacked out so as to protect their decision makers in the top management.

Excellent question Cat, since the enforcement documents do say "PROTECTED" all over them ... they had no trouble blacking out any training received by the dispatcher, and various other info I had specifically asked for, while my own letters and reports to them, which they have kindly returned to me by way of access to information, are full of black marks.

Somehow, I think I might be able to use this little tidbit of information that slipped through ...

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:40 am

widow, I spent years trying to save my company and my career from Dave Nowzek and Pruess and their crew of thugs that run aviation like their own Mafia sans the protection racket that the Mafia offers.

The access to information is a scam, nothing less and an insult to Canadians.

Even if you do get genuine " Protected " documents like I did sent to me in brown envelopes by friends in TC they are useless anyhow because when you produce them as proof of maleficence on the part of TC they just shrug their shoulders and say sue us.

Believe it or not when I produced one of TC's origional unaltered " Protected " documents to the acting Director General Transport Canada in our last meeting he passed it to his flunky across the table and asked if it was genuine. The flunky said yes it appears to be. Anyhow when I tried to get him to defend said document he said sue us.

So that about sums up the hopeless situation that the aviation industry is faced with in Canada with arrogance like that to deal with, they make any African dictator look like rank amateurs.

I wish you well in your campain, but short of a civil revolution to overthrow these thugs I do not hold out much hope for you being very sucessful widow.

. .

sportingrifle · Post by **sportingrifle** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:48 am

I'm not an AME but there is no doubt that the degree of corrosion evident in the photos is severe. The victims of this accident are believed to have perished due to drowning/hypothermia because they had no wreckage to cling to/climb on to. The aircraft sank with the floats attached wich means the floats failed. The critical question is wheather the floats failed due to improper repairs or corrosion weakening them. From the photos, I would think that there is a real chance of this.

The arguement that "that's just the way things are in the bush" just doesn't hold water - literally.

Cheers Sportingrifle

Rowdy · Post by **Rowdy** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:09 am

Some of the patches look to be normal.. However the corrosion looks pretty bad on a few spots and a lot of goop used. I got lucky to see the airplanes I was flying last summer out of the water when they had the maintenance done.. Sure were quite a few patches on the bottoms from stress splits and rocks but with the inspection covers off and everything else you couldnt see any corrosion like that. They also didn't take on much water.

Could someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't one of the "patches" over the hole used for the original beaching gear!?

Spinner · Post by **Spinner** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:15 am

Rowdy wrote:Could someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't one of the "patches" over the hole used for the original beaching gear!?

you are correct the last picture in the string is.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:43 am

Note that I don't know what I'm looking at and have only pulled a small sampling of around 70 photos taken ... I'm putting together a slideshow of just float photos (all) and will post when available.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:52 am

So here is the link to the float slideshow, I tried to put the pics in a bit of order, at least at the beginning ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM_dA3FydXo

Note that holes were poked in the floats in order to release water - they weighed heavily and it was that weight that broke one off as the aircraft was towed to shallow water before being surfaced.

Also note that the float that is basically intact is the one that had recent repairs and no sealant at the deck hatches.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:35 am

Well the quality of that was really crappy, so I have made it just 16 shots of the floats, four each side for each float.

Here is the new link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPLpUtz9phM

Anyone who flies with floats that have been maintained like these is dancing with death ... and leading their passengers with them.

This photo was taken by our group within days of recovery ...

Big: http://www3.telus.net/public/t9232724/h ... age055.jpg

glorifiedtaxidriver · Post by **glorifiedtaxidriver** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 4:37 pm

Looks like almost every float I ever flew on in Ontario. I hate to be the guy to argue here, as I do think that accident was a particular trajedy that could have been prevented, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree with the condition of the floats. No float, even a brand-spanking factory new float will stay intact when it hits the water at 100 mph. I remember that day, I was flying on the north coast at the time. It was foggy all the way from Vancouver Island to Alaska. And no amount of floatation is going to help you when you have an engine failure over top of fog. I can't even picture trying to let down through 0/0 over glassy water with no instruments and try to hit the water smooth enough to not tear the floats apart. This is speculation of course - the flying over fog part - but knowing how the operators on the coast work, that is my theory.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 5:52 pm

This is speculation of course - the flying over fog part - but knowing how the operators on the coast work, that is my theory.

It goes beyond speculation with me, I have been flying on this coast since 1973 and have never ever flown in or over fog VFR where I could not glide to visual reference with the surface...except once when I accidently flew into glassy water, very light rain that suddenly turned into loss of surface contact in a Twin Otter, in that case I immediately landed as I was prepared for such an outcome.

So please don't include all pilots in the same catagory of unsafe flying practices....O.K.?

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 6:09 pm

The evidence does not indicate that the aircraft touched the water at 100 mph, or anything like that ... the evidence indicates it was not a landing that would have caused serious injury or damage.

Expert A:

The aircraft damage viewed would suggest the mechanics of the accident involved a forced landing due to lack of visibility through the aircraft windscreen compounded by poor visibility due to meteorological conditions at the time. A power off nose up attitude would produce a rapid decent with a heavily loaded aircraft. The aft section of the RH float is bent up, with suggests a heal dig which would have bounced the aircraft back into the air. A slight kink in the upper LH wing half way between the strut and tip, plus the tip being knocked off in an upward motion suggest the LH wing may have contacted the water at some point in the chain of events. The most significant damage appears to have been caused by the aircraft subsequently stalling and striking the water in a nose and RH wing down attitude with a sideways component to the direction of travel. Both upper diagonal tubes of the engine mount have tension fractures (are completely separated mid tube), and both lower mount tubes have compression bulges just above the firewall mount, indication a significant vertical inpact The forward section of the right float has basically exploded from the impact of being driven up and being struck by the propeller and impact with the water. At the same instant the right wing impacted the water and was torn from the fuselage, as indicated by upper cabin damage. Video shows the right wing on the bottom with a near 90 degree bend upward, just outboard of the outer flap attach, also what appears to be the exhaust intensifier tube is completely flattened by the impact. Compression damage to the left mid section of the fuselage suggests the aircraft struck the water with a sideways component consistent with a stall.

I do not believe the aircraft cart wheeled into the water as there is very little damage to the Left wing, the horizontal stab, elevators, or rudder and vertical fin as viewed in underwater video. Damage to the fin, rudder, and elevator tip was incurred during salvage.

Expert B:

The bottom damage on the floats indicate that the pilot landed wings level, in the proper 3-point attitude for a no power landing and with a fairly high rate of vertical descent. I might add that a Beaver without power glides like a rock! We know that glassy water conditions prevailed that day, and with the pilots forward visibility impaired, he flew it onto the water without flaring, as we are taught to do under those glassy water conditions. Without power, the descent rate was so great that the plane bounced upon touching down. I think the pilot then added full power (despite the other problems of added smoke, vibration, fire, etc.) in order to smooth out the landing. This is consistent with "ear witness" accounts. Because he was going so slow, when he added full power, the left hand wing would have dipped down (Newton's Law: for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction) Evidence shows that the left hand wing tip hit the water, slightly bending the spar, and throwing the plane into a left water loop, which then tore off the right hand wing. When the right wing is recovered, you will find that it is bent upwards outboard of the strut attach point, and that it will have considerable outboard leading edge damage. This was also when the right float got broken into two pieces (the tip of the float you see missing in the images). Please note that the above differs considerably from that put forth on page 5 of your 21 September 2005 letter directed to Ms Larcombe wherein you state that ''the aircraft had struck the water in a right-wing low attitude." That is just not what happened! The fairly even upward compression damage to the bottom of both floats proves otherwise. If the aircraft was in a right wing low attitude close to the water, such as in a low right hand turn, and the right wing tip then hit the water, the resulting cartwheel would have caused far different and more severe damage to the aircraft than there is.

This is from the TSB letter to coronor Larcombe referenced above:

The aircraft had struck the water in a right-wing-low attitude. The right wing was tom from its mounts and the right float was severely damaged in the forward quadrant. This flight attitude is consistent with a witness account of the aircraft turning right and away from Quadra Island;

The engine and propeller were missing but the accessory section was present and showed no signs of pre-impact damage;

The engine mounts were in place and showed no impact damage. The significance here is that the engine did not tear off at impact but more likely fell free over time because of corrosion of the many magnesium engine components.

This is the extent of what TSB had to say about what the damage indicated. Full letter here: http://www3.telus.net/public/t9232724/h ... oroner.pdf

BTW, another expert viewed the wreckage yesterday ... one especially cognizant of floatplane accident investigation. Despite the deteriorated condition of the wreckage, this expert concurrs that an engine malfunction caused an attempted emergency landing, the effects of which were catastrophic due to the pre-accident conditon of the floats. This expert sees the same compression damage in the engine mount area our other experts see, but the TSB does not. Since I can see the damage they are talking about, you probably can too, here: http://www3.telus.net/public/t9232724/h ... age041.jpg (pic taken days after recovery)

glorifiedtaxidriver · Post by **glorifiedtaxidriver** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 4:29 pm

please don't include all pilots in the same catagory of unsafe flying practices....O.K.?

I didn't mean to imply that everyone on the coast is running around flying over fog, but you know as well as I do if you've been out here for as long as you have that some guys do it regularly.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 4:41 pm

Frankly, the weather is irrelevant. The accident was not caused by weather. It may have been a contributing factor, but it was NOT the cause.

CID · Post by **CID** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:26 pm

Frankly, the weather is irrelevant.

No it isn't. My hope is that you will understand why and accept that some day.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 6:01 pm

I understand why you think it is relevant CID. While I agree that there is weather pushing that goes on here on the Wet Coast, this pilot did NOT simply fly into bad weather and crash. For that reason, with respect to this accident, the weather IS irrelevant.

This accident was NOT caused by weather. I have eyes, and they work.

Inverted2 · Post by **Inverted2** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 7:14 pm

Out of curiosity, what exactly was the weather that day?

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 7:44 pm

According to the witness towing logs near Rebecca Spit: "Engine cutting in and out and the sound of something like pontoons hits the water repeatedly. Then he heard a big thump (somthing like the sound you hear when lighting a BBQ)" **JRCC incident log 01MAR2005 2211Z

Inverted2 wrote:Out of curiosity, what exactly was the weather that day?

Clear in Campbell River, fog patches on the way to Frances Bay (destination 1 or two if not able), clear at head of Knight's Inlet (destination 2). Storm rolled in that afternoon. According to another operator who departed for Gilford Village five minutes before, "Weather conditions at departure time were favourable for VFR flight, however, were subject to localized fluctuation due to drifting fog and convective activity". You can read what the TSB said on page 007 : http://www3.telus.net/public/t9232724/h ... oroner.pdf . Again, EVERYONE was flying in the area.

glorifiedtaxidriver · Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:37 pm

Widow wrote:I understand why you think it is relevant CID. While I agree that there is weather pushing that goes on here on the Wet Coast, this pilot did NOT simply fly into bad weather and crash. For that reason, with respect to this accident, the weather IS irrelevant.

This accident was NOT caused by weather. I have eyes, and they work.

The weather may not have been the initial cause of the accident, but it certainly turned what could have been a minor inconvenience for all on board into a trajedy. A failed engine over landable water - even an engine fire with a place to land is not life threatening. Trying to land that airplane in an emergency situation in fog - whether overtop of it or not is one of the hardest things I can imagine having to do in a beaver. It's the combination of the two that caused the accident. Either one alone
is not truly life threatening. I'm not defending anyone or pointing fingers at anyone, but if anything is to blame it's the safety culture of those pilots, operators and passengers who routinely use floatplanes for transportaion. Yes, passengers as well. You'd be suprised how many regular floatplane passengers push their pilots to get them in or out or home or wherever. Its the whole culture that needs to be looked at and not a single pair of floats. Again, this is all meant with respect and if I'm off the mark, fire away.

Dog · Post by **Dog** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 10:31 am

Widow wrote:I understand why you think it is relevant CID. While I agree that there is weather pushing that goes on here on the Wet Coast, this pilot did NOT simply fly into bad weather and crash. For that reason, with respect to this accident, the weather IS irrelevant.

This accident was NOT caused by weather. I have eyes, and they work.

Widow, have you been able to positively rule out that the oil did not run up the fuselage and over the window when the engine corroded in half? (The aircraft was found standing nearly vertically on the ocean bottom)

The baked on oil on the accessory heat shield is not necessarily indicative of a fire either. Small oil leaks over time can cause these marks as the oil is burned by its very close proximity to the exhaust manifold in this location. I cannot see if this burn marks are present behind the heat shield and on the firewall, however.

The marks on the side of the fuselage might be exhaust stains caused by leakage from the exhaust segments. I am unable to draw any concrete conclusions by looking at these pictures alone.

For those of you that don't know: I flew AQW the Friday before it crashed. I worked for MJM air for less than a year when I moved to Vancouver Island. Friday was my last day for the company and on the day of the crash I was driving the highway to Port Hardy to start a job with my current employer. Arnie (the pilot), was a dear friend of mine and I have a terrible hole missing in me that he used to fill. Dave (Widow's husband) flew with me often and he was a truly exceptional person; I enjoyed all the time I spent with him.

I suppose some would consider me an expert on floatplanes (I do not). If the definition of expert is: a person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area. I have made a living flying floatplanes for ten years and have operational experience with every type of machine that currently operates on the West Coast. I have around 5000 hours in Beavers.

I have not outwardly speculated on the cause of this accident. I cannot rule out that an engine failure as a contributing factor in this accident. I can not say with the confidence of your "experts" that it was. As you can see by reading posts on this board, there are many who profess to be experts (especially after an accident). It's important to realize that some of the things that influenced the accident that day are lost forever with the people that were there. Evidence, like the bible, is interpreted differently by different people.

Having suffered through personnel tragedy I can say that, although it seems as though it will, knowing the reason for it does little to ease the pain of the loss.

It hasn't been in me to respond to your latest PM yet. I'm hoping to address all your questions soon.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 5:00 pm

Dog wrote: Widow, have you been able to positively rule out that the oil did not run up the fuselage and over the window when the engine corroded in half? (The aircraft was found standing nearly vertically on the ocean bottom)

Basic physics, oil and water don't mix. No oil could have stuck to the surface when the aircraft was wet. A considerable amount of oil did leak out after the aircraft was dumped on the barge, however that does not explain what is clear to me in the picture as the aircraft first surfaced. I am happy to provide video of the aircraft when still underwater, as well as the recovery video to anyone who would like to see it. Nor does oil leakage post accident explain the well over twenty documented witnesses to an engine coughing and sputtering.

You should know that what caused this accident is important to me only in so much as I feel that future accidents may be preventable by properly examining the entire chain of events. When the aircraft was first recovered, TSB should have instantly removed the entire wreck to their facilities for examination instead of suggesting we drop it off at the AMO, and leaving it in our hands when we refused. They initially took NO evidence for examination. By the time they did take anything relevant (about 15 months after recovery), any evidence was far too contaminated/corroded for any conclusive findings - findings which would have been clear when the aircraft was first recovered. Clearly, the engine may hold the answers. If the TSB had spent the money on retrieving the engine instead of stalling for so long before doing a bunch of worthless examinations, we would not be where we are.

I do not see any sense of "closure" coming to me by retrieving the engine. I do believe that ignoring the clear evidence of some kind of engine failure is, on the part of the regulators and investigators, negligent. Without knowing what the witnesses heard, how can we know that this is not something that could happen again - something to be learned from?

Again, it does not appear that the debated engine failure, or the weather, was what resulted in the deaths of Arnie, Dave, Fabian, Doug and Trevor. After all, with seatbelts unbuckled and no human remains on board - they all got out, probably alive. Certainly Dave got out alive and virtually uninjured. The condition of the floats (which the TSB do not have the "expertise" to examine for safety issues), the lack of communications or flight following, the failure to call SAR when it was determined the aircraft was missing, these failures were negligent. And Transport Canada insists this was acceptable.

The failure of any government agency to investigate these five deaths for contraventions of the Canada Labour Code, for a failure to maintain a safe workplace, is NOT acceptable, and this I mean to change.