Dempster flame out?

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog

User avatar
raven54
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 548
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:14 am
Location: a dumpster

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by raven54 »

Strega wrote:Raven,

I can assure you I will not run out of gas because some douche company wants me to go with "what I have"
Nor will I. But we don't know all the details. Lets not flame the dude till we know if he deserves it. But, someone probably screwed up here.
---------- ADS -----------
 
black hole
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: Ontario
Contact:

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by black hole »

As long as everyone is bashing: is there any chance that (the so-far-unbashed) petroeum transfer engineer filled her as per fuel requisition -------with AVGAS??? Just a thought.

BH
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
square
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 4:36 pm

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by square »

I thought avgas nozzles aren't supposed to be able to fit in jet fuel openings? Maybe it's the other way around. But a PT6 should burn it anyway.
---------- ADS -----------
 
black hole
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: Ontario
Contact:

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by black hole »

I thought avgas nozzles aren't supposed to be able to fit in jet fuel openings? Maybe it's the other way around. But a PT6 should burn it anyway.



Yes but less bang for the Buck.

BH
---------- ADS -----------
 
iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8133
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by iflyforpie »

black hole wrote:As long as everyone is bashing: is there any chance that (the so-far-unbashed) petroeum transfer engineer filled her as per fuel requisition -------with AVGAS??? Just a thought.

BH
square wrote:I thought avgas nozzles aren't supposed to be able to fit in jet fuel openings? Maybe it's the other way around. But a PT6 should burn it anyway.
PT6s should run fine on AVGAS. The SG is lower so your fuel flows will be higher and you will get lead contamination on the turbine blades after a few hours.

The 'Hoover Nozzle' (which came about as a result of Bob Hoover's Shrike Commander being mistaken for a similar-looking Turbo Commander) prevents Jet Fuel from going into piston aircraft, not the other way around.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
User avatar
PT6-114A
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:06 am
Location: I love the south

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by PT6-114A »

I flew for NWA for 4 years. I was never not once pushed into weather or told to take less fuel. EVER. I flew the 99 in question for 2 years and only once had a fuel gauge problem with it and it got fixed right away other than that the fuel gauges were right on. The 99 is easy to tell how much fuel you have. 1. Full 2. when the nac not full lights come on 3. when it is empty. If a guys knows the plane and fuel burn it is a good system.
---------- ADS -----------
 
roger.roger
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 7:10 pm

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by roger.roger »

There is no way the company culture was not a factor here. No way. It doesn't excuse the driver, but if N-W can get away with washing their hands of the guy and not facing up to recent history along with this thing then I guess TC really is as useless and incompetent as some folks like to suggest.
well PT6-114A seems to disagree with you effin, when did you fly for them?
---------- ADS -----------
 
I think that if you stick to the dotted lines when making the folds your might have some aviation success.
R1830
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 11:54 pm

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by R1830 »

I also flew both the aircraft and the route in question for NWA in years past and like PT6A-114A never felt pressure to fly in conditions that were not safe, if anything I found the company was very supportive of any decisions I made.

I can honestly say that never once did I find myself in a situation where I was low on gas, or being pressured to go with less than adequate fuel.

This is not, or at least was not when I was there a company culture thing. FGH to YEV is a relativly short flight. 4500 feet would be pretty normal as an altitude, especially if operating single pilot with the requirement to be VFR. Keep in mind the 99 is not pressurized and has no oxygen so going up high to save gas isn't that big of a helper.

As previously stated you end up over the Dempster for the last bit of the flight in from YGH, so that would not be a strange place to be.

Obviously something went wrong here, but please refrain from bashing a pilot without knowing facts. I have flown for the company, on that route, in that aircraft and I am far from qualified to comment on what may have happened. I would say some of you armchair critics are far less qualifed than I am, so perhaps keep your opinions to yourself as they are not helpful.

I have always found the guys that show no empathy for others and jump all over them without knowing facts are usually the least qualified and the least competent. It is only a truly inexperienced pilot who has the gall to say that they will never screw up or be put in a situation that causes them problems.
---------- ADS -----------
 
You can fly a radial farther than you can ship a Merlin.
'effin hippie
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:44 pm
Location: Further..further...ok, too far...

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by 'effin hippie »

I don't need any inside info.
The facts in the public domain speak for themselves clearly enough. N-W has a number of accidents and incidents in its recent history, enough to warrant a pretty serious look from Transport. Maybe they find out that that company is totally blameless. Fine by me. Happy to hear it. But I'm sure not putting money on it.

Somehow this guy ran out of gas. Somehow 2 years ago 5 people died. There are more, as anyone who has been there knows. These things don't happen in isolation, we KNOW that too. How anyone could suggest that there ISN'T at least the indication of a systemic problem is beyond me.

I'm not bashing the driver. I've made my own share of mistakes and been lucky. I'm not even really bashing the company, although I do think the whole paycheque hostage deal is pretty scummy. Maybe the issue is one of oversight as opposed to outright pressure. But I've been around long enough and seen enough crappy operations to know that smoke usually means fire.
How much more crap has to happen before TC takes a serious look? Like I said, if everything comes up roses I'd be happy to hear it. But its time for that look.

ef
---------- ADS -----------
 
klimman123
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:30 pm

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by klimman123 »

Here are some pics of the event
Glad everyone is ok

Image
Image
Image
---------- ADS -----------
 
Donald
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2430
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:34 am
Location: Canada

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by Donald »

Hahah, I bet WW sh*ts a brick when he finds out those pics are on-line!
---------- ADS -----------
 
swordfish
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 745
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 12:18 am
Location: CYZF

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by swordfish »

I'll go out on a limb and suggest there is NO company in the North that suggests, coerces, or implies in any way that you run around with as little fuel as possible to go somewhere - even in VFR conditions. There is no "Keystone" mentality or culture in the North (at least in this regard).

Up here, the weather changes in a half-hour, and you can rarely depend on the forecasts on the Arctic Coast. You're usually just as well off trusting your own judgment and instincts.

We DO however, get counseled not to tanker gas around that cost a fortune to buy; i.e. don't buy more than you 'absolutely' have to to get to your home base or somewhere the fuel is a way cheaper. Good Hope isn't one of those places.

As you are all aware, pilots up here have a couple of additional stresses they face in the course of a normal day's work, one of them being the long distances to alternates, and the fact that there's only one alternate at that distance. So we tend to "ensure" that we have "sufficient" fuel on, even when the wx seems good.

But that doesn't obviate the stress of considering whether I 'absolutely' have to get gas here, refueling at very high prices, taking an hour or more to get fueled, plus a $100 or higher call-out fee - and weighing it up against what appears to be enough to scrape into Inuvik in VFR conditions, albeit almost on fumes.

Of course, when gambling like this you occasionally lose out...
---------- ADS -----------
 
3juggs
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:12 pm

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by 3juggs »

When are people and companies going to learn that it is cheaper in the long run to be safe, the only time granny fuel is going to hurt ya is when your on fire! Flying around the arctic on min fuel sooner or later will catch up and I'm glad that the only thing that got hurt was this guys pride. We all take calculated risk from time to time and I got away with my share of mistakes but to push it this far not only put his life at risk but the employment of his fellow co-workers at risk, transport can suspend a companies AOC's as quick as it takes the fax to print in the chief pilot's office then take their time investigating and auditing the books. If that was an isolated incident at this company I wouldn't worry as much but if this shit happens here and there then sooner or later transport likes to crack the whip and make an example out of a company just to make it look like they actually do something.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
overshoot
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 9:45 pm
Location: You Don't Want To Know

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by overshoot »

I flew for Warren for 4 years.

I was NEVER pushed on gas or weather. NW is a good company and they fly in an area that has few places to land or refuel at for that matter. They also fly higher risk missions in the mountains with the Twin Otter, Porter and smaller planes. Training is thorough and they spare no expense. The fatal accident people keep bringing up 3 years ago was the result of a terrible chain of events not related to the company culture. Weather was a huge factor and as a matter of fact TSB never did find out what really happened. So for the guy's sake that died and all the pain that remains at the company from that accident, keep the comments to a minimum. Fact is, at NW safety is important and the guys running that shop know that ignoring safety will cause the company its life. The guy flying the 99 made a mistake. Systematic maybe, but see this for what it is. Not enough gas in the tank. Pilot's responsibility!!! There is fuel available in GH. I never left a place, even in the bush, if I didn't have a backup plan. This was beaten into me by the guys that taught me. Safety can always be improved, that is never an argument. That doesn't mean that safety is being ignored.
---------- ADS -----------
 
ever
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 8:54 pm

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by ever »

'effin hippie wrote:I don't need any inside info.
The facts in the public domain speak for themselves clearly enough. N-W has a number of accidents and incidents in its recent history, enough to warrant a pretty serious look from Transport. Maybe they find out that that company is totally blameless. Fine by me. Happy to hear it. But I'm sure not putting money on it.

Somehow this guy ran out of gas. Somehow 2 years ago 5 people died. There are more, as anyone who has been there knows. These things don't happen in isolation, we KNOW that too. How anyone could suggest that there ISN'T at least the indication of a systemic problem is beyond me.

I'm not bashing the driver. I've made my own share of mistakes and been lucky. I'm not even really bashing the company, although I do think the whole paycheque hostage deal is pretty scummy. Maybe the issue is one of oversight as opposed to outright pressure. But I've been around long enough and seen enough crappy operations to know that smoke usually means fire.
How much more crap has to happen before TC takes a serious look? Like I said, if everything comes up roses I'd be happy to hear it. But its time for that look.

ef
Like overshoot said, Nobody pushes you into anything at North-Wright. Warrens tough but fair, Cheif Pilot is as good as they come. All Accidents in recent history to my knowledge are simply pilot error, Not the company putting you into tough spots or anything like that.
---------- ADS -----------
 
just curious
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 3592
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:29 am
Location: The Frozen North
Contact:

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by just curious »

Most of us know our competitors as we know our neighbors, that is, we know them to see them, but not a lot more than that.

I see the North Wright guys every day. By contrast, they have less support than us. Loaders, ramp rats, counter staff, if you want an airplane loaded, towed, or to pay for a trip, you see the pilot who is doing the flight. To me, they seem a bit young. They probably are. But they work damnably hard in an area not known for it's cultural charms. They ramp they dispatch then fly Cessnas then the Caravan, the 99, or the Otter.

The payback for the internship (for lack of a better term) in Good Hope, Deline, & Collville Lake is the nearly meteoric rise from rampie to Otter and Beech captain.

I can easily see why our FO's might resent that, given that their upgrade depends on an ATPL, built painfully slow due to the lack of command time. Better for us I suppose if we had a couple singles for build up time. But our FO's seem to get along fine with them, recognizing that we're all in this aviation adventure together. I don't see for a moment these guys to have any pressure for taking less fuel, since they just park at the pumps, put on the wraps and go in to warm up and do paperwork. I've seen their boss extremely torqued. But in retrospect it was when one of his employees was doing ( or not doing ) something to put at risk the company, or the plane. I can also remember one of the NWA guys telling a competitor point-blank that the weather on his intended rout was crap, and if he went, he was gonna die. He was right.

I took two things away from this:
  • The single pilot driver made a good landing on a narrow, steep-banked road dead-stick, and didn't so much as nick a prop tip. I try, when teaching, to have candidates understand that one cannot usually salvage a good landing from a bad approach. Forced approaches don't feature heavily on multi training syllabuses.
  • The decision to make the flight, and the resultant forced landing, cost the young man in question his job. As I understand it, he did the honourable thing and retired.
Politicians in Canada have a custom of appending the the term honourable to their names, then, when honour suggests that they should step down after doing something dishonourable, steadfastly refuse to do so. Cretien's Hotel, Mulroney and the Airbus, Whatshisface with the family fleet of Great Lakes Freighters (registered offshore and mostly foreign crewed.)

This guy made a mistake, & paid for it. No drama no media circus. Look at the circus clown apologists in the inquiry into the Buffalo Dash 8 disaster. A fair selection of these idiots would only have served aviation safety by being in the back end of that aircraft. They really appear more dangerous to us as authors of policy.

As I recall, my teenaged dating experiences were largely disasters. Several of my ex-copilots will never get motorcycle insurance. American Motors made the Gremlin. The federal government passed the Air Canada participation act. We can all stand to learn from these mistakes. I've no doubt the company in question has been shaken greatly by this whole thing. That's usually how change occurs.

I'll give the guy the benefit of the doubt.
---------- ADS -----------
 
swordfish
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 745
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 12:18 am
Location: CYZF

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by swordfish »

Well put, JC.
---------- ADS -----------
 
yfly
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 285
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:28 am

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by yfly »

just curious wrote:Most of us know our competitors as we know our neighbors, that is, we know them to see them, but not a lot more than that.

I see the North Wright guys every day. By contrast, they have less support than us. Loaders, ramp rats, counter staff, if you want an airplane loaded, towed, or to pay for a trip, you see the pilot who is doing the flight. To me, they seem a bit young. They probably are. But they work damnably hard in an area not known for it's cultural charms. They ramp they dispatch then fly Cessnas then the Caravan, the 99, or the Otter.

The payback for the internship (for lack of a better term) in Good Hope, Deline, & Collville Lake is the nearly meteoric rise from rampie to Otter and Beech captain.

I can easily see why our FO's might resent that, given that their upgrade depends on an ATPL, built painfully slow due to the lack of command time. Better for us I suppose if we had a couple singles for build up time. But our FO's seem to get along fine with them, recognizing that we're all in this aviation adventure together. I don't see for a moment these guys to have any pressure for taking less fuel, since they just park at the pumps, put on the wraps and go in to warm up and do paperwork. I've seen their boss extremely torqued. But in retrospect it was when one of his employees was doing ( or not doing ) something to put at risk the company, or the plane. I can also remember one of the NWA guys telling a competitor point-blank that the weather on his intended rout was crap, and if he went, he was gonna die. He was right.

I took two things away from this:
  • The single pilot driver made a good landing on a narrow, steep-banked road dead-stick, and didn't so much as nick a prop tip. I try, when teaching, to have candidates understand that one cannot usually salvage a good landing from a bad approach. Forced approaches don't feature heavily on multi training syllabuses.
  • The decision to make the flight, and the resultant forced landing, cost the young man in question his job. As I understand it, he did the honourable thing and retired.
Politicians in Canada have a custom of appending the the term honourable to their names, then, when honour suggests that they should step down after doing something dishonourable, steadfastly refuse to do so. Cretien's Hotel, Mulroney and the Airbus, Whatshisface with the family fleet of Great Lakes Freighters (registered offshore and mostly foreign crewed.)

This guy made a mistake, & paid for it. No drama no media circus. Look at the circus clown apologists in the inquiry into the Buffalo Dash 8 disaster. A fair selection of these idiots would only have served aviation safety by being in the back end of that aircraft. They really appear more dangerous to us as authors of policy.

As I recall, my teenaged dating experiences were largely disasters. Several of my ex-copilots will never get motorcycle insurance. American Motors made the Gremlin. The federal government passed the Air Canada participation act. We can all stand to learn from these mistakes. I've no doubt the company in question has been shaken greatly by this whole thing. That's usually how change occurs.

I'll give the guy the benefit of the doubt.
A lovely post JC. I can just picture a defence lawyer spewing it verbatum. You are however a more forgiving man than I. Departing without adequate fuel to make your destination is counter to the most basic of requirements and is the most negligent decision when conducting powered flight. It shows extremely poor judgement and a tolerance for unreasonable risk. That doesn't mean I don't wish him a successful career, but he won't have that chance with me.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
square
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 4:36 pm

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by square »

Well I hope all you condemning the pilot to hades have some knowledge of the 99. Might've been that the previous guy told him he had 3000 pounds onboard don't worry about it. Not like you can dip the tanks in that bird.

PS awesome pics
---------- ADS -----------
 
yfly
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 285
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:28 am

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by yfly »

square wrote:Well I hope all you condemning the pilot to hades have some knowledge of the 99. Might've been that the previous guy told him he had 3000 pounds onboard don't worry about it. Not like you can dip the tanks in that bird.

PS awesome pics
I have never heard of an instance where the previous PIC was responsible for the fuel requirements of a flight. As PIC, it is your job to confirm the fuel onboard is adequate for the trip. It is pretty black and white really.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
PT6-114A
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:06 am
Location: I love the south

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by PT6-114A »

does the 99 hold 3000 lbs?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Donald
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2430
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:34 am
Location: Canada

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by Donald »

PT6-114A wrote:does the 99 hold 3000 lbs?
I'm pretty sure you know the answer to that...think it's 2400lbs max.

Barring something unusual like a fuel leak, or other mechanical snafu (which hasn't shown up in any cador updates yet), I believe someone already mentioned the "nac not full" lights?? Should come on with about 285lbs/side left?? Which is probably about how much was on board leaving ygh?? It's been awhile, but I think that takeoff is not permitted with those lights on?? In any case, the pilot should know when those lights come on, exactly how much time is left before things go quiet, assuming they are functioning correctly and are 100% calibrated.

But as JC said, nice deadstick landing to a narrow road, lucky no traffic was coming!
---------- ADS -----------
 
swordfish
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 745
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 12:18 am
Location: CYZF

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by swordfish »

PT6-114A wrote:does the 99 hold 3000 lbs?
You have to pack it in, rather than pour it in. :lol:
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
square
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 4:36 pm

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by square »

f if i know how much fuel it holds but i remember one company who operated it like that, just subtracting hours flown from fuel added all week.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Too_Low
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 11:39 am

Re: Dempster flame out?

Post by Too_Low »

Could it have been a new capt? How does one figure 800# for an hour's flight with two turbines? It's shocking to see how it happened, but I still hold out a hope that (s)he doesn't get too ruined over it...a shame really.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”