Five Deaths Demand Justice Petition

[Widow]

Thanks cloudcounter, lol...

see this thread ... A good day fishing: Engine Recovered

[Widow]

Thanks to the person (you know who you are!) who posted a link to the petition on the ACPA forum ... pilot signatures adding up!

And, FYI:

On the 28th of February, 2005, pilot Arnie Feast and his passengers Dave Stevens, Fabian Bedard, Doug and Trevor Decock died following a survivable floatplane accident. All five men were working, or on their way to work and yet no investigation has ever been done into the Occupational Health and Safety hazards which contributed to these five deaths. There has been no coroner’s inquest. There has been no investigation for cause. An RCMP investigation remains open.

On March 2nd, two days before four Alberta RCMP officers were killed in the line of duty, the body of Dave Stevens was recovered barely five miles from the aircraft base. But it was not until the 28th of July, 2005 that the fuselage (without power section) was recovered at the physical, emotional and financial expense of the families of Arnie, Dave, Fabian, Doug and Trevor. The four missing men were not on board. All seatbelts were unbuckled, although life jackets were all still stowed.

Although there was considerable evidence of engine failure on the retrieved wreckage and amongst the witness reports, which led to the ability to locate the aircraft, the Transportation Safety Board did not take possession of the wreckage, or do more than a cursory examination. They concluded their investigation with a letter to the coroner in September 2005, which left the implication that the accident had been the result of weather and pilot error.

Dissatisfied, the families produced their own report, and insisted the TSB take responsibility for recovering the engine and determining the cause of the accident. Instead they offered $10,000 in May 2006, should the families be successful in their privately financed efforts. This has led to understandably considerable delays.

With more pressure from the families, the TSB sent a new investigator to inspect the wreckage in November 2006. By this time considerable corrosion had set in, and, as expected, the results were inconclusive.

As the families continued their research, they discovered that due to jurisdictional access, Worksafe BC was not authorized to take part in the investigation. Rather, under a joint agreement with the Minister of Labour, Transport Canada Civil Aviation is expected to appoint a Minister’s Observer. Yet no Minister’s Observer was assigned to this case. Instead of immediately investigating the company operating the aircraft, Transport Canada began an Enforcement Action for “Unknown” infractions against the missing pilot. It was not until December 2006 that they sent their own inspectors to examine the wreckage. This resulted in an Enforcement Action being initiated against the Approved Maintenance Organization.

After a very expensive recovery effort failed in March 2007, the families began to appeal to, amongst others, the Federal Ministers of Transportation, Labour, Public Safety and Justice. In late May, a petition was begun addressed to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and demanding a Public Inquiry into the circumstances surrounding this accident. Having been officially endorsed by the United Steelworkers and the BC Federation of Labour, the petition is being signed on-line and on paper editions across the country.

On September 11, 2007, the families were finally successful in recovering the power section of the aircraft, and duly turned it over to the TSB for examination on September 13th.

Although some assurances have been received, the families no longer trust the officials to “do the right thing”. We have written letters to the Director General of Transport Canada Civl Aviation, Merlin Preuss, and the Director of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, Terry Burtch, outlining our expectations. (Available on website)

With this open letter to All Canadians, we appeal to you to help protect the safety of workers and other members of the travelling public by Printing this letter in your newspapers, copying and sending it to all your MPs, MLAs, and all the contacts in your email address book. Demand a public inquiry into this accident.

Please help protect the future safety of your loved ones. Let us learn from this accident, before another unnecessary death takes place.

Visit http://www.questforjustice.ca for more information, to download a paper copy, or to link to the on-line petition.


Kirsten Stevens, Campbell River BC

Website: http://www.questforjustice.ca
Petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/cgaqw/petition.html

[Widow]

With our demand for assurances to the TSB, we submitted the following:

This map and notations were made by a pilot flying the area that day, who helped us recreate the flight and determine the location of the fuselage. Witnesses are numbered in order that they heard aircraft and I've added "Take-off" "CGAQW Located" "Body" and where the witness was who heard the calls for "Help".

CGAQW Accident February 28, 2005

Weather: Lined area over the water was a solid overcast of approximately 500 - 600 feet altitude with variable ceilings underneath from 100 - 200 ft. with varying visibility of 2-4 miles. This is a weather observance by a pilot flying in the area that morning with additional statements from witnesses. Area over the land was clear.

Aircraft: The aircraft was loaded close to gross weight with substantial fuel, 4 passengers and freight.

Scenario: As the aircraft was climbing on route to Knight Inlet, an engine problem developed creating a povver loss at point (A) that was serious enough for the pilot to attempt an emergency landing. No longer being able to maintain altitude, the choice of landing area was the rocky heavily treed area on Quadra Island or the water. The landing on Quadra would certainly have resulted in substantial damage to the aircraft with the high
risk of fire and explosion given the amount of fuel on board with the tanks in the belly. The water landing would be through a layer of cloud 300 - 400 feet thick to an area underneath with a ceiling of 100 - 200 feet and 2 - 4 miles visibility. The choice for greater survivability would be to head for the water.

Witness Reports: Witness statements indicate a very rough running engine sound punctuated at times by loud high pitched noise. This would indicate a significant intermittent power problem. Although the aircraft was not visible, the time, sequence and report of engine sounds from witness # 1 to witness # 6 would indicate the flight path of the aircraft. Witness # 6 thought he heard an impact noise.

[Widow]

"Five Deaths Demand Justice" now on youtube:

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

[Widow]

Just noticed that in the 03/07 edition of TP185, it shows that this accident (A05P003) was a result of VFR into IMC ... TP185

Guess it fits with this ...



Gosh I'm anxiously awaiting some kind of word regarding the breakdown. They were doing the prop yesterday and the engine today ...

[Widow]

Hey everyone,

Keep getting requests for updates, so I thought I'd say ...

The visual inspection of the prop and power section were completed this past week, with representatives of all parties, as promised.

Certain parts have been set aside for further analysis in the labs. I will be going this week to review the findings before said parts are sent off for further breakdown.

I hope to be able to say more by the end of this week.

[flyingwire]

Wondering if there has been any source of oil leakage established yet? Prop seal, Prop Governor, Governor flex hoses, rocker cover or drain tubes etc?

[Widow]

Several parts are suspect.

[flyingwire]

If I were looking for sources of the oil on the window and the obvious (such as cylinder hold down studs, cracked cylinders etc) was not conclusive, I would think that it may be worthwhile paying particular attention to the condition of rubber hoses located near the top of the engine that go to the prop governor, they contain presurized oil. If these hoses are not replaced periodically they can become brittle and crack. They also can chaffe on surrounding things. While not very common to hear of one blowing it could be easily overlooked on an examination as it only would take a very small crack in the rubber (which could be very difficult to see with the naked eye) to potentially cause a fair amount of oil to be released.

[Widow]

Friend or foe, I wondered ... having been accused by another of being a "troublemaker" ... lol

Good advice, flyingwire. I think we have our bases covered this time.

[flyingsafely]

In a low tight turn this DHC-2 struck the water with one wing tip and sank. Everybody on board would have drowned if it wasnt for the fact that this
happened 150' or less from shore in the middle of summer. Note the fine spray of oil all over the windsheild and side windows. There was no fire,
no leaks,and no engine failure as determined by eye witnesses. The prop sliced through the floats but did not bend.
See Cadors Number: 2007P1459.

[Widow]

hmm, that looks like recovery leakage to me ...

trying to deflect attention? lol

[flyingsafely]

"Fine spray of oil all over the windshield..."

There were droplets of oil sprayed all over the windshield, roof and passenger windows. It appeared to be blown back on the aircraft by propwash. There were thick streaks of oil on the fuselage, mostly on the right hand side.
It came out of the water that way.
There was very little oil on the surface of the water when the plane was recovered. There was a small puddle of oil that leaked out when it was put on the barge.

I can send you more pictures.
If you want.

[Widow]

and this relates to AQW how?

[WhiteDove]

Well perhaps the same thing happened to aqw as this plane, one should never be narrow minded when investigating accidents. By the way... have you heard what the results of the engine inspection were?

[Widow]

Ooh, sweet! Gotta love the trolling.

Big meeting tomorrow.

[xsbank]

Hope the meeting will go as you hope, Widow.

[Widow]

We know enough to have come to our own conclusions regarding certain matters. Tomorrow will only confirm them ... and tell us the next step

[Widow]

For those interested, the prelim report, or Safety Information Letter, by the TSB, dated October 4th, regarding C-GAQW can be found here:

http://www3.telus.net/public/t9232724/i ... Prelim.pdf

This is the

Summary
In summary, the visual examination of the available components did not identify any indications of a pre-existing condition that would have prevented normal operation of either the engine or the propeller. There was evidence of lubrication in the engine and none of the examined components exhibited signs of an in-flight fire.

The following components will be examined in more detail by the TSB Engineering Branch:

• 1. Rear ignition lead to the number 9 cylinder;
  2. Propeller shim impact marks which will be evaluated by both the Engineering Branch and by Hamilton Standard;
  3. A governor propeller control hose that has not yet been delivered to the TSB Regional office (was delivered October 5th); and
  4. A carourettor fitting that connects the main fuel line to the carbeurator. This will apparently be delivered to the TSB at a later date. (Note this part is visible in photos from when the fuselage was first recovered, but is no longer attached and must be located in the storage facility).
  5. One broken exhaust valve adjustment screw.

Note that during our meeting with the TSB and TC System Safety, on October 5th, a number of other parts were additionally set aside for further examination.

It seems that the pressure of the press has helped to put pressure on that some findings should be made as soon as possible. They indicated to us that they hoped to have a final report completed within two months. Wouldn't that be amazing?!

[geewhiz]

Dear Widow,
I am a member of the aviation community in which you seem to find to be at fault in this accident. I have read many of your postings and followed what has been going on very closely.
I along with many of my collegues I am unsure what you are really looking for. Are you looking for an appology? I for some reason believe that this will not suffice.

My question is...
When it is determined after this witch hunt has been concluded that the cause of the crash was not any mechanical failure, and that the maintenance is not to blame, will you be ready to appologize for badmouthing everybody invloved. I do not just mean the Maintenance facility, but the individuals at Transport Canada, and Transportation Safety Board as well. You have spent the past two and a half years pointing the finger at a group of individuals, if not directly blaming them, infering that they are at fault, if is proven that you are wrong, are you prepared to make a formal appology to those individuals?

????????????

[Widow]

If you had, as you say, read and followed my postings, it should be very clear to you what I am "really looking for". I have stated over and over that I want to know what caused this non-fatal accident to become fatal, and prevent similarly caused accidents/fatalities in the future. Since the evidence before me points clearly to some kind of mechanical failure forcing a turn around, fatally complicated by additional factors, I will never gladly accept an "inconclusive" determination. Since Dave was left for hours to slowly drown following this low-impact accident barely five miles from home, I will forever pursue regulatory changes to prevent anyone else from suffering the same way.

I'm not sure I agree that I have "badmouthed" any person or entity (I think I've been quite careful not to "name names"), since substantial evidence exists to support my "allegations". If Dave had been your brother/son/spouse/loved one, would you simply accept a non-investigation, with no safety recommendations - when what you've seen with your own eyes, heard with your own ears, researched with your own mind, told you that the accident/fatal outcome could have/ should have been prevented? Remember, Dave was a logger. In the woods, they had to check in every 15 minutes. When loggers die on the job, there is usually a pretty big investigation into all the surrounding circumstances, and that is what I expected. That is what I still expect. Do you think it is possible to make peace with this kind of unnecessary death without knowing why it happened, or why it seems to be "ok" that it happened? We tried for some time to quietly get answers, but without making information public, our demands fell on officially deaf ears. No one told us the rules were different, and it took us over two years to figure out what the rules are.

It is interesting that those who deem my efforts a "witch hunt", seem to be the ones who have the most to lose by my demanding thorough investigations. Those with nothing to lose seem to think I'm doing something that benefits the industry, and respect my determination...

As for apologies, if it were to be proven to me that I have erred in attributing certain actions/inactions as having contributed to the accident/fatal outcome/ post-accident trauma to the families, I hope I would be gracious enough to offer a formal apology.

If I am proven correct, do you think apologies would be forthcoming to me? If an action/inaction were to be found to have negligently contributed to the accident/fatal outcome, then of course I would like to see any person/party accept responsibility. No one has ever said so much as "I'm sorry I did not call sooner", and my husband, the father of my three children, is forever gone because of that inaction. So no, an apology would probably not suffice. But it would be a start. Fixing the problems would be better. Not letting it happen again would be best.

I was wounded when Dave was stolen from me. The cure will be “tombstone safety”.

[Justwannafly]

what I find interesting is the posters who are badmouthing Widow are all 1 post profiles....Makes me wonder if it's not the same person

[Cat Driver]

Dear Widow,

I am a member of the aviation community in which you seem to find to be at fault in this accident. I have read many of your postings and followed what has been going on very closely.
I along with many of my collegues I am unsure what you are really looking for. Are you looking for an appology? I for some reason believe that this will not suffice.



My question is...
When it is determined after this witch hunt has been concluded that the cause of the crash was not any mechanical failure, and that the maintenance is not to blame,

geewhiz:

I also am a member of the aviation community and I find your accusing widow of being on a which hunt to be offensive and my opinion it is you who is on a which hunt.

will you be ready to appologize for badmouthing everybody invloved. I do not just mean the Maintenance facility, but the individuals at Transport Canada, and Transportation Safety Board as well.

Why would you want widow to apologize for pointing out what anyone with an IQ above room temperature has known for years, that TCCA in the Pacific Region is arguably the most morally corrupt TC office in Canada under the leadership of Dave Nowzek. How can you even suggest that widow is on a which hunt when it has been proven beyond doubt that Nowzek is a dishonest moral degenerate unfit to belong to a street level gang?

You have spent the past two and a half years pointing the finger at a group of individuals, if not directly blaming them, infering that they are at fault, if is proven that you are wrong, are you prepared to make a formal appology to those individuals?

????????????

I'm ashamed to even think that there are people like you in this industry, you with TC?

[diesel-10]

I am heartily sick of reading Cat Driver's barrage of drivel about corrupt TC officials. This kind of defamatory personal attack is criminal libel. As well, it is contrary to the rules of this forum. If you have some kind of upset with TC in the Pacific region, then pursue it with them in a place other than here. Your unsubstantiated slander is clearly an attempt to use this forum to air your own agendas behind the anonimity of this web-site, and not to add value to this thread. You appear to have a deep knowledge of coastal aviation in BC and you could bring valuable insight to any efforts to improve safety in this industry - your industry - if you got off your soap-box and collaborated with those who wish to change the situation, rather than engage in a slanging match. But then after all, that's your choice - to either be part of the problem or part of the cure.

Widow, I wish to confine my comments to aircraft airworthiness and function, because I see the SAR aspects you have raised as being worthy areas for you to focus upon independently.

Having monitored this particular forum from the beginning, I would now ask that you share your latest information regarding the long-awaited inspection of the engine on 5 October 2007. What now are the findings? Did the no.2 cylinder fail as you and your expert have repeatedly claimed? Did the studs fail? Did your examination reveal any mechanical failure that could have led to engine malfunction or stoppage? Was there evidence of an oil leak to support your windshield and slipstreaming oil theories? Was the oil line intact? Did the propeller governor malfunction? Was the propeller in fine pitch? Were there strike marks on the propeller blades indicating rotating contact with the floats? Were there any signs of fire, scorching, melting, or corrosion? Were any engine components fire-damaged or missing? In summary, please tell if anything in the form of hard evidence was discovered at that examination that supports any of your experts' mechanical findings over the past 18 months?

Rather than flop from one speculation to another to another each time the real evidence disproves it, now is the time for you to record the results of the formal engine examination you attended with your team of experts.

Some may dislike my tone, but all I want to hear at last is a full account of the many mechanical failures and scenarios you have vehemently promoted at large - somewhat prematurely perhaps, without the engine actually in hand - so that a fair and balanced scientific analysis can be made, and leave the adversarial approach of investigation to the litigation phase.

"There are none so blind as they who will not see."

[Guido]

I am heartily sick of reading Cat Driver's barrage of drivel about corrupt TC officials.

Yet another single post wonder... I'm shocked, really.

Since you've "monitored this forum from the beginning" you might have realise that "Cat Driver" doesn't hide behind any sort of anonymity. In fact, his name is pretty much ingrained in all our minds - . Elsworth. See if you can't find out some information about how much experience he has, and I'll provide the ketchup for the foot that you'll be eating afterwards.