Five Deaths Demand Justice Petition

[Cat Driver]

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.

So we have another anonymous poster making statements on the first post that shows the lack of understanding of the subject.

disel-10, if you feel that my allegations are criminal libel why don't you contact Dave Nowzek and demand that he serve me with a writ to appear in court to answer to my allegations?

the truth is Dave knows I have enough proof of what I am alleging that the last thing he wants is a public airing of these matters.....

...so here is a deal diesel-10 you get the ball rolling to produce a writ and I'll get the ball rolling for the news media coverage of the trial.

You might want to get in touch with the Federal Minister of Transport and get him geared up to defend how TC is run here in the Pacific Region under Dave Nowzek.

As well, it is contrary to the rules of this forum.

There is nothing in the rules of this forum that prevents me from posting the truth.

If you have some kind of upset with TC in the Pacific region, then pursue it with them in a place other than here.

I already have..right to the top of Transport Canada and their own investigation determined that what I am stating is true.

Your unsubstantiated slander is clearly an attempt to use this forum to air your own agendas behind the anonimity of this web-site,

Anonimity??? WTF are you talking about:

To serve the writ here is my name and license number:
. .

Transport Canada pilot license number:

AA38841

T.C can dig up my address with that info.

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 -

It is not my industry anymore, as TC has made sure I can not work in Canada because I proved that Nowzek and Preuss are both dishonest and have denied me my civil rights.....I have it documented 100% and that is why I can post this here without fear of violating the forum rules.

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.

Go xxxx yourself diesel-10.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Since you've "monitored this forum from the beginning" you might have realise that "Cat Driver" doesn't hide behind any sort of anonymity.

Guido:

The audacity of diesel-10 to suggest that I do something positive for aviaton in mind boggling.

What could be more important than exposing corrupt managers in TCCA?

[flyingsafely]

There is no evidence of engine failure.

Widow, you have said:

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.

Have you been specific in "attributing certain actions"? I don't think so. Instead you have been careful not to make direct statements, relying on innuendo and the conclusions others have drawn from those innuendos.
For example, how about these comments from postings you have made?

"Obviously the AME/AMO should know better. But just like the pilots, they sometimes do what the money tells them to do."

"I, like you, believe that probably damn near all the time the maintenance folk do do the very best job they can. But when they don't, and especially when that don't results in someone getting hurt, then they should be held accountable."

"CID, my husband was uninjured. He got out of that plane and floated around for HOURS, alive and concious, before hypothermia finally got him and he drowned - slowly. Would you like to see his autopsy report? He would not have been in the water if it were not for the engine failure, ...."

"Unapproved repairs which have the potential to make the aircraft structurally unsound (such as repairs to deck coamings) are hardly likely to be documented - as in this case. "

Widow, I can't help but feel that an apology is owed to the AME's, apprentices and staff at the AMO in Courtenay, the AME's, apprentices and staff at the AMO in Campbell River, the staff at the TSB who have done their best to answer every question you have had, and also to the aviation community who have been led to believe a scenario that never happened.
I think you are owed an apology by your "expert", who, for whatever reason has continued to feed you mis-information and distorted facts.

[geewhiz]

Cat Driver, it is clear to me that you have not had the best dealings with Transport Canada, but in this particular forum that is irrelevant, and not what is being discussed.

Widow, I am sorry that I may sound accusatory but I have been reading one allegation after another from and Transportation Safety Board has proved all allegations unfound. I feel that before a person makes such terrible allegations they should have cold hard evidence.

What has been said after the inspection of the engine...
“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.”

Widow, there has been no evidence to back any of your claims.

No “engine failure”, “engine malfunction”, “engine stoppage”
No failure of the no.2 cylinder
No evidence of fire
No the prop governor did not malfunction

What will you speculate next? You have the engine and still you have no proof that there are any signs that mechanical failure was the cause of the accident.

I ask you when are you going to be ready to apologize for having erred in you insistent allegations against the AMO’s, AME’s, TSB, and TC.

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

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Cat Driver, it is clear to me that you have not had the best dealings with Transport Canada, but in this particular forum that is irrelevant, and not what is being discussed. , but in this particular forum that is irrelevant, and not what is being discussed.

And it is clear to most of us in aviation that when you have dishonest corrupt management at the top levels of Transport Canada Civil Aviation people such as widow have every right to distrust anything that TC has to say about anything.

Cat Driver, it is clear to me that you have not had the best dealings with Transport Canada,

If you know what transpired between me and TC how is it possible for you to defend TC?

For your information I have had an excellent relationship with TC for over fifty years, until I found myself dealing with an Inspector who was acting far outside of any guidelines and in an illegal manner.

So how do you defend people at the level of Preuss and Nowzek not only protecting one of their employees but went to the extent of disregarding the law themselves in their attempt to cover for said employee?

Is it O.K. in your mind for TC officials at the level of Preuss and Nowzek to disregard the rule of law to protect their own?

If so then aviation in Canada is truly at a lower level than places such as Nigeria and Kenya

[xsbank]

There seems to be a lot of axe-grinding going on here. I cannot see the final report that concludes what you Campbell River gang are saying. Even if the engine was sound there is evidence that the overall maintenance was sub-standard and there is serious deficiencies in how the company was operated.

When the final report on the engine is out, then you can start beating your chests. Otherwise, leave Widow alone. She is trying to improve this industry to make it safer for all of us who are not otherwise protected. If you haven't figured that out yet, there is a section on this site where you can go to read the jokes and watch the Youtube postings.

[Justwannafly]

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.

My thoughts exactly....Interesting how they have "monitored this forum from the beginning" & yet just became a member.....So durring the last 2 years they never felt like posting anything else?...hmm yea right

[Widow]

Diesel-10/flyingsafely/geewhiz

I did share the TSB preliminary results four posts above Diesels first. Two separate experts felt that the apparent smoke scaring and oil pattern on the fuselage could likely be attributed to a cylinder failure. As a direct result of a letter written by one of these experts, this service difficulty advisory was issued: http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/certi ... 007-02.htm. Although there does not seem to have been a cylinder failure, this does not discredit our experts.
The report does not say there is no evidence of engine failure, it says “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.” Perhaps the difference is too subtle for you.

The report does not say the prop governor did not malfunction. It has not even been disassembled yet.

There are signs of oil leaks – “Engine oil was noted in the crankcase and on a number of other internal engine components.”

No evidence of fire, does not exclude evidence of intense heat/smoke.

I have not belittled every AME, apprentice, or staff member at your outfit, nor your outfit as a whole. What I have said has not been disproven, but in some cases confirmed. I have not mislead the aviation community, but presented them with facts/evidence and have allowed them to make their own decisions. I have been open to debate, suggestions and advice. Transport Canada did fail in not investigating this accident for infringements of the Canada Labour Code, and, in my opinion, for allowing MJM to operate commercially at all. The TSB failed in not “investigating for cause”, and in not examining the wreckage more thoroughly when it was recovered in July 2005 – by not doing any real analysis until over 15 months later, crucial evidence may have been forever lost. Certainly, those test results were “inconclusive”.

I am satisfied with the way the TSB investigation is now proceeding, and that TCCA is participating, and await the TSBs final results. I think you should wait until their investigation is complete before demanding apologies.

Oh, and one more thing “flyingsafely” – I would be interested to hear in what way our expert(s) have misinformed us or distorted facts … I am, after all, just after the truth.

[diesel-10]

Guido/Cat Driver/./justwannafly - whoever you are today: Your 'single-post" point is what? Because I chose to wait until the real facts were known - as did many others - that makes my comment less valuable or authentic than yours? And I guess none of you started with "0" posts? Perhaps you just don't like others challenging you? It boils down to this: Unless you were there and know first-hand what developed, you have no more understanding of the issues than I. And spare me the indignation.

Mr..: You seem to have little idea of the legal test for "criminal libel", and to challenge TC to prosecute you is just reckless bravado and meaningless rhetoric. Were they to actually prosecute, you would be the first to howl about your rights and unfair practices. Put your money where your mouth is - take those corrupt TC officals to court! Call in the Press! Or simply shut up.

The forum rules regarding libel/slander are clear, but only for the rest of us and not you, apparently. Perhaps this is a good indicator of your previous difficulties with TC? And you have raised another CD gem - the Truth According to ..

When one reviews your many criticisms, it is a common thread to see you attack the critic and not the substance of the post. I do not know what transpired between you and TC, nor do I care, but I repeat, your self-righteous indignation is misplaced in this group.

Sadly, your own words have shown you are most unlikely to be a constructive critic for the Canadian aviation system, since it is no longer yours. So you just sit back and hurl your abuse to get your revenge. Good Job! The industry, on the other hand, will try make the system better, despite your help. I do apologise for foolishly suggesting that you contribute to the solution; at the same time, regarding your latest instruction for me to "Go xxxx yourself", I am so pleased to see more calm and reasoned thoughts from you. Perhaps you could try it first and let me know how you make out.

And by the way, I recognise that Widow has worked tirelessly for the aviation industry by trying to indentify those short-comings she sees as contributing to the loss of lives in this accident.

The bottom line regarding the engine/aircraft is this - table the facts, analyse them, and draw conclusions. Then go ahead with fixing the identified problems.

Waiting for the facts was worthwhile; speculation was not.

[twotter]

Diesel 10 or whoever you are and I really don't care.

I have know Cat Driver/. . for probably more years than you have been alive. I take extreme offence to your suggestions that this man has not proven his case, has nothing to offer the industry, and would not be a good critic for the industry.

You sir, have obviously not been involved in the industry very much if you have not heard of this man. He has a long history of safe and legal operation of everything from homebuilts to jets, not to mention helicopters. You sir, seem to be the one with an axe to grind, why would you suddenly come out of the woodwork to attack such a man? Before you anonomously attack a man like this, why do you not enlighten us on who you are and what your vast experience is. Then you may have some credibility, because as of now in your anonomous state, you have none.

[Justwannafly]

Mr..: You seem to have little idea of the legal test for "criminal libel", and to challenge TC to prosecute you is just reckless bravado and meaningless rhetoric. Were they to actually prosecute, you would be the first to howl about your rights and unfair practices. Put your money where your mouth is - take those corrupt TC officals to court! Call in the Press! Or simply shut up.

The forum rules regarding libel/slander are clear, but only for the rest of us and not you, apparently.

Diesel 10 or whoever you are and I really don't care.....
......why do you not enlighten us on who you are and what your vast experience is. Then you may have some credibility, because as of now in your anonomous state, you have none.

is your name ?

Just wondering as you seem to be such a legal expert & all

[flyingsafely]

Oh, and one more thing “flyingsafely” – I would be interested to hear in what way our expert(s) have misinformed us or distorted facts … I am, after all, just after the truth.

I admire your "hypervigilant" quest for the truth, and I think you are sucessful in making the industry think about the issues. For that, I thank you.

Now, about the expert:
In his report dated February 19, 2006 to the TSB, before the engine was recovered, he states "that there was a cylinder stud type failure on either cylinder #2 or #3 about two to three minutes before termination of flight."
"the above failure allowed oil to flow out onto the hot and bare exhaust system....causing much smoke."
Even though the engine had not been recovered, he ends the report with the statement:
"The above conclusions are based on the facts as I see them, and are not speculation".

Even after the engine was recovered, he was still trying to say it had failed.

He was quoted in the newspaper, the Campbell River Mirror on Sept 14, in an article on the recovery of the engine, as saying "Look at this, this is extremely important, this is where paint dripped down - we know definitely there was a fire...All indicators are this thing lost oil pressure and it fried. It just fried."

By the way, there is an error in your last posting:

There are signs of oil leaks – “Engine oil was noted in the crankcase and on a number of other internal engine components.”

The oil is supposed to be in the crankcase. It proves that there was oil in the engine, and not a leak.


Flyingsafely

[Widow]

Both experts reports were submitted to us, and the authorities, as theories based on their experience. We, the families, have never stated unequivically that there was a stud failure, only that this was a solid theory based on the evidence, and that the engine was required to find out what really happened. We have not been mislead. No facts have been misrepresented to us.

I am not blind. I saw the wreck as it was recovered. No one will ever convince me that this
wasn't the result of smokey oil, or that this
does not look like slipstreamed oil.

Have you seen the engine since recovery? Oil was on other internal engine components. While in the picture you posted with oil spray and no engine failure everything still looks clean and pretty ... this engine does not.










I will wait for TSB to finish their investigation and tell me what I am seeing.

Why are you so opposed to there having been an engine failure anyway?

[Cat Driver]

Why are you so opposed to there having been an engine failure anyway?

widow, pilot error is always the easy way out.

Just think how simple it would be for TC and the rest of those who may have something to hide if they can contribute the accident to nothing other than pilot error.

[xsbank]

Cat's right again. We have to assume the pilot is rational, so why turn away from the best visibilty/weather conditions and descend into glassy water, away from visual references, ultimately to crash into the water, unless he was forced? And weren't the floats in such poor condition that there was not enough flotation in them to keep the junk floating?

Blaming the pilot is the catch-all for all unexplained accidents. It is as logical as saying that 'all engineers are incompetent and cause all accidents.'

An Islander left YBL for Smithers some years ago, 8 pax on board. It vanished, never seen again. Nobody knows what happened, nobody. The conclusion was pilot error and the pilot's estate was sued, screwing his widow and kids.

[Widow]

And weren't the floats in such poor condition that there was not enough flotation in them to keep the junk floating?

This has not been proven. The TSB does not have the "expertise" (or said they did not), although it was TCCA's inspection in December '06 that resulted in their "alleging that major repairs were performed without required data and without required certification" and "initiating an enforcement action".

[Dog]

I hope no one looses sight of what was trying to be achieved here in the first place: Improving safety.
I'm emotionally involved with this accident and I want something positive to come out of it.
I was enraged at the assumptions that where sent to Kirsten by these "experts".
I don't think that "pilot error" is a slander against the pilot either. More appropriately it should be called system error though. Human-beings make errors: always will. We allow pilots (usually low time ones) to do the most difficult flying with the least amount of supervision with predictable outcomes. So who is to blame? The pilot or the system that lets pilot error accidents re-occur over and over again.
I think the obvious scenarios are the most likely. If you've been involved in West Coast aviation very long you will know what they are. I'm not going to name them.
The tragedy, in my opinion, is that this is likely an accident that has happened out here many times before and if we don't change things, it will continue to happen.
It's time to invest in safety. New more survivable airplanes, checks and balances to reduce the chances of single point of failure accidents (like the pilot), and (most importantly) a cultural change from the "get it done" style to a get it done SAFELY one.

If we're in this for safety we don't need to pick apart the details. Lets stay on track to get to the intended outcome together.

[carholme]

For all of the chest thumpers out there, beware your anxious attempts to discredit and prove Widow wrong. It is amazing how you all sit in the willows and hide, tearing apart word by word the attempts of a lady who has lost in her early years, her husband, father to her children and friends.

Widow, your attempt to deal with the situation in an open and public forum is to be commended and I am sure you were aware that these kinds of people would come out gunning at the some point. Not too many people under your duress would have even attempted to wade into the shark filled waters of AvCanada, yet you have and I think your value to the industry may not get the accolades you so richly deserve.

Continue on with your quest, knowing that many of the experienced people here are in full support for simply raising various issues, which we with our blinders on, too often fail to look at. The weasels, and there are many of them will show their true colours after the fact. I wonder how many of the speakers here have really done as much as you have for our industry.

It is when discussions take place and the light gets shone on the dark corners that we just might learn something. Most of us should be ashamed of ourselves for not dealing with the problems in our own industry.

Thank you for being a bit of the light and keep on with your efforts.

You got balls girl.

Gerry Whalen
DaxAir Inc.

[Widow]

Make no mistake, the people who heard AQW in the area of Open Bay and Rebecca Spit that morning will argue til they are blue in the face - they heard an aircraft in trouble. These are all direct quotes taken from seperate entries in the JRCC logs ... it was these witnesses, and more, who were interviewed and whose information was used to track the progress of AQW - and find it.

• "She noted the engine was very loud"
  "Very loud, and rattled her windows"
  "Heard an aircraft reving up and down"
  "Heard an aircraft ... doing a low/high rev of the engine"
  "Sounded like a plane either in the air or on the water having problems. Engine cutting in and out"
  "Heard what sounded like an a/c trying to power out of something"
  "Heard a loud roaring engine and a bang"

Please talk to these people if you want to argue about what they heard.

Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 1:06 PM
Subject: RE: Civil Aviation Issues Reporting System (CAIRS) File Number NC-2336


Dear Kirsten Stevens,

This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter to Mr. Merlin Preuss, Director General Civil Aviation, dated September 16, 2007. In your letter you raise concerns in connection with aircraft accident, C-GAQW, February 28, 2005 (docket # AAR2006G097207).

For your records, these concerns have been submitted to the Civil Aviation Issues Reporting System (CAIRS) for action and have been assigned file no. NC-2336.

For your information the issues raised in your e-mail will be forwarded to the appropriate Transport Canada Accountable Manager for review and response. The Civil Aviation Issues Reporting System (CAIRS) process provides the accountable manager 20 working days within which to prepare a response to your concerns. Once the Report Coordinator has received the response, a copy will be forwarded directly to you.

In the meantime, should you have any questions or if I can be of any other assistance to you in this matter please do not hesitate to contact me at (604) 666-8317 or via e-mail at CAIRS_PAC@tc.gc.ca.

Sincerely,

P.S. Thanks "carholme"!

[Cat Driver]

Carholme, thanks for another thoughtful and valid post, but may I also commend you and your partner Kirsten at Dax Air for having the strength of character to also stand up and be counted by appearing before the committee to testify as the some of the problems that are systemic within the regulator.

This bit from widows post worries me for the simple reason I personally can not take any statement coming out of the Pacific Region office of TCCA under its present management as being even close to believable.

For your information the issues raised in your e-mail will be forwarded to the appropriate Transport Canada Accountable Manager for review and response.

Accountable to who? Dave Nowzek and Merlin Preuss?

[binderdundat]

Make no mistake, the people who heard AQW in the area of Open Bay and Rebecca Spit that morning will argue til they are blue in the face - they heard an aircraft in trouble. These are all direct quotes taken from seperate entries in the JRCC logs ... it was these witnesses, and more, who were interviewed and whose information was used to track the progress of AQW - and find it.

• "She noted the engine was very loud"
  "Very loud, and rattled her windows"
  "Heard an aircraft reving up and down"
  "Heard an aircraft ... doing a low/high rev of the engine"
  "Sounded like a plane either in the air or on the water having problems. Engine cutting in and out"
  "Heard what sounded like an a/c trying to power out of something"
  "Heard a loud roaring engine and a bang"

Please talk to these people if you want to argue about what they heard.

Widow,
I find that I am unable to believe someone when they claim to have heard an aircraft in trouble, an aircraft crashing or claim to have heard cries for help coming off the water but that they do nothing until a day or more later when it was in the news. I dont doubt your claim that these people actually made these statements I just think that if their accounts stating thier concern were truly credible, they would have dialed 911 or at the very least their local police. I know that people who live on Quadra complain very frequently about loud aircraft as they are practically "living at the end of a runway"

[flyingsafely]

Hi widow,

I'm not " opposed to there being an engine failure." I just think it was unlikely.

The most obvious difference in appearance between the DHC-2 whose picture I posted and that of AQW is that the DHC-2 in my picture was in the water for less than 24 hours. I have been told that the black stains on AQW possibly resulted from the electrolytic action of the magnesium.

Otherwise I thought the the damage was eerily similar, right down to the lost section of float.

The CADORS for the pictured DHC-2 states:
"The ... DHC-2 float-equipped Beaver aircraft flew from Patricia Bay to Dodger Channel where the pilot planned to land. He set up an approach to land to the south in Dodger Channel, into the wind. On short final the pilot noticed a shoal so he decided to overshoot, make a circuit, and land beyond the shoal. He applied power, established a climb, and began a left turn. As the aircraft turned, it came into the lee of Diana Island. The aircraft encountered subsiding air and began to descend. The pilot was unable to arrest the descent. The aircraft struck the water and sank. The pilot and the front seat passenger were unable to open the front doors. The rear seat passengers opened the rear doors and all six occupants evacuated the aircraft through the rear doors as the aircraft filled with water. All six occupants were able to swim to shore and were uninjured. Life jackets were available, but none were being worn. The aircraft was substantially damaged


The pilot and passengers survived because it was the middle of summer, they were close to shore, and there was a boat that was meeting the plane.
It was not like that when AQW went down. Why did it take so long for the dispatcher at MJM Air to make any phone calls? What qualifications and training did she have?
How can we make sure that anyone dispatching or flight following understands the ramifications of assuming that everything is all right when a pilot has not reported in?
I think we should be pushing for more effective training for all dispatchers. A new hire at Tim Horton's gets two days of formal training, via Videos, before they start serving coffee. I'm sure working at Tim's is not as easy as one might think, but nobody drowns when a waitress screws up.

I admire your ability to make everyone sit up and take notice, but I think your shotgun approach has injured people who have much the same interests as you.

Flyingsafely

[Widow]

binderdundat, That's a tough question that has been asked, especially by me, over and over again. One of the men who heard the a/c impact with the water has called me several times, and we met and talked over dinner one night. He cried and showed great remorse. Explanations vary from not knowing exactly what it was they were hearing, to not being near any form of communication, to listening to the emergency marine band to see if anything was broadcast and hearing nothing thinking everything was OK, to being in a hurry to catch the ferry and thinking "someone else will call" ... Of course, there is also the story of the person who did call, and was scoffed at by the Quadra RCMP ... we haven't been able to verify that though as the RCMP investigation remains open and so records cannot be accessed. And since the witnesses all more or less, "live at the end of a runway", they are all very familiar with how a beaver USUALLY sounds. The RCMP never even interviewed the people living on their boats in Heriot Bay at the time.

flyingsafely, I don't doubt what you've been told. But what I saw, smelled, touched, all with my own senses, told me that was oily smoke. In any case, it should have been tested immediately upon recovery to find out. Theories, as I'm sure you'll agree, are worthless without facts (which of course, is why we persisted in bringing up the engine).

I know I'm not an expert, but your "no failure" scenario does not make sense. In the other accident, the occupants knew they were decending, hence they were prepared, uninjured and able to escape. If this a/c had hit the water not knowing they were anywhere near it, there should have been much more damage to the aircraft and occupants - no doors opened and everyone escaping - but everyone disappearing forever.

You are right about the dispatch though, and this has been the crux of my cry throughout. All other systems failing, had that one not failed, Dave would still be alive - and we would know definitively what had happened that day. Since she was the bosses girlfriend, it makes sense she would have thought she was in charge. I have asked TC to provide me with proof of her training through Access to Information, but they have chosen to exclude that information.

In my opinion, there was one person who had ultimate control over almost every link in the possible/actual chain. But I can't touch him, and no one else seems to want to - although he has threatened to sue me. That person had made "mistakes" concerning maintenance and safety issues in the recent past, in another industry, which had cost a life. This is proven fact. To me, that makes all his equipment suspect of the same deficiencies. No expert had to tell me to suspect maintenance deficiencies - that is natural - even without the history. But I would be very happy to know that there were no maintenance deficiencies. There are enough ways I feel the loss of Dave could have been prevented. But unless it is proven to me, I will always believe that something went wrong and forced Arnie to turn around.

[twotter]

Cat's right again. We have to assume the pilot is rational, so why turn away from the best visibilty/weather conditions and descend into glassy water, away from visual references, ultimately to crash into the water, unless he was forced? And weren't the floats in such poor condition that there was not enough flotation in them to keep the junk floating?

Blaming the pilot is the catch-all for all unexplained accidents. It is as logical as saying that 'all engineers are incompetent and cause all accidents.'

An Islander left YBL for Smithers some years ago, 8 pax on board. It vanished, never seen again. Nobody knows what happened, nobody. The conclusion was pilot error and the pilot's estate was sued, screwing his widow and kids.

You remember that? Do you remember the search, the american crews coming up using even psychics?

That was a crazy one.

[Justwannafly]

You remember that? Do you remember the search, the american crews coming up using even psychics?

That was a crazy one.

hmm their magic 8 balls must have been broken that day