Tough month for Borek 2 x DH-6's

[bigsky]

Date: 2010-05-10
Further Action Required: No
O.P.I.: System Safety
Narrative: C-FSJB, a DHC-6 Twin Otter operated by Kenn Borek Air, was on a survey mission northwest of Alert, NU and the aircraft had 2 crew and 3 scientists on board. After landing on the ice and coming to a stop, the right main gear went through the ice. All 5 occupants were able to evacuate the aircraft and the crew turned on the ELT and removed the survival gear. They were picked up by helicopter about 2 hours later and transported to Alert. The Twin Otter was observed to be about 50% submerged when the occupants were picked up. Weather was not a factor. TSB report to follow.

Date: 2010-04-14
Further Action Required: No
O.P.I.: System Safety
Narrative: A DHC-6 Twin Otter operated by Ken Borek Air departed an ice field on Melville Island with two crew and two passengers destined for another ice field. Shortly after getting airborne at 2115z, the aircraft settled back to terrain and upon touch down, the nose gear broke off. The aircraft experienced substantial damage to the nose and gear, but there were no injuries. Weather was not a factor in the incident. The company has dispatched personnel to repair the aircraft and ferry it back to base. TSB report to follow.
User Name: Ridley, Rod
Date: 2010-04-15
Further Action Required: No
O.P.I.: System Safety
Narrative: UPDATE TSB reported that the Kenn Borek Air wheel-ski equipped Dehavilland DHC-6-300 Twin Otter, registration C-GKBC, was departing from an unprepared strip on the Melville Island ice cap. The strip surface was smooth snow. There were two crew and two passengers on board, as well as a small skidoo, a skidoo sled, and boxed gear. The sky conditions were clear and the winds were estimated to be 5 to 8 knots. The take-off was initiated on a slight downhill slope, into approximately 70 degrees of crosswind, with a minimum of 2000 feet available to a predetermined reject point. All engine parameters were normal; however, the aircraft did not accelerate as expected and the take-off continued approximately 800 feet past the reject point, to an area where the terrain sloped more steeply into a depression. The aircraft became airborne at low speed over the depression and maximum power was applied in order to clear gently rising terrain ahead. The main gear contacted the ground on the far side of the depression, and the aircraft bounced and touched down a second time in an area covered by basketball size rocks. At that point the take-off was rejected and the aircraft came to a stop approximately 300 feet past the second touchdown point. There were no injuries; however the nose gear broke off at the fork, and the aircraft sustained substantial damage to the forward, lower and aft fuselage. The company has initiated an SMS investigation.

Good to see no one was hurt. I think Borek lost one through the ice in the same area around 1982. GKBO if memory serves me right.

[mag check]

Did I miss something? Why was the takeoff continued another 40% past the reject point?
Maybe my definition of a reject point is different than boreks?

[C-FABH]

Here is the update for the recent incident:

The DeHavilland DHC-6-300 aircraft on skies, registered C-FSJB, operated by Kenn Borek Air was about 90 nautical miles north of Alert, Nunavut, when a landing spot was found for survey purposes. The flightcrew performed a ski drag and landed on the second approach. Once the aircraft was stopped, the right landing gear broke through the ice while both engines were running. The right engine hit the ice under power. Both engines were shut down. The captain called on the HF radio for rescue while the first officer initiated evacuation of the passengers, the recovery of the survival gear and the activation of the 406 ELT. All the occupants moved away from the broken ice surface. A camp was setup and communication was made via Sat phone with Resolute Bay base. Two hours later a Bell 407 helicopter arrived to evacuate all the occupants to Alert. There were no injuries. The aircraft fuselage was last seen submerged up to the wings, tail high.

[Rowdy]

Another one lost to the ice.. damn! I wonder if it's at all recoverable? SJB was a nice machine.

[ettw]

Glad to hear that everyone was OK.

ETTW

[SAR_YQQ]

All engine parameters were normal; however, the aircraft did not accelerate as expected and the take-off continued approximately 800 feet past the reject point, to an area where the terrain sloped more steeply into a depression.

Troublesome quote there - I can only imagine that Borek's SMS will get to the bottom of it.

[bombardierfixer]

Well atleast its a short taxi from the Viking hanger to Borek for the two brand new ones that they will be ordering.

[jspitfire]

GKBC after repairs.

[Beef Jerky]

Great that no one was hurt in either incident. Perhaps training or lack of proper training was a factor?

[ettw]

Great that no one was hurt in either incident. Perhaps training or lack of proper training was a factor?

I know the captain in the first incident and he has been doing this sort of work for years. I don't think its a lack of training, Borek is top notch in that department. That being said, in that world of work, things are often not as they appear and that complicates things. Keep in mind, this is not runway work, this is a VERY dynamic operating enviornment and sometimes sh*t just happens.

I'm just really glad no one got hurt in either case. Really happy.

Cheers,

ETTW

[50'minimums]

Sounds like the the situation after the break through in the ice was handled very well, kutos to the crew for doing a great job.
ETTW is right about operations in unusual conditions. These are no 5000' paved runways up there, and the factors involved are countless. Its not a matter on knowing or not knowing conditions, it truely is always a series of calculated risks.

[lost in the north]

sms at its best,did they use the risk assessment matrix.....just jidding,I do off airport as well and sms does not stop this from happenning

[mag check]

Its not a matter on knowing or not knowing conditions, it truely is always a series of calculated risks.

Of course it is, that's why they had a preplanned reject point, to minimize the risks, and avoid an accident. The question is why did the 2 crew members not stick to the plan?

[40ktcrosswind]

I Do this kind of job every day on a twin otter, and in my mind, I know someting like that is gonna happend to me one day, It's part of the offstrip job. Those who fly a king air can't understand, good job to the crew, every one is safe.

[all_ramped_up]

ouch! glad everyone is alright!

SJB WAS as nice machine as Rowdy mentioned. a shame that she bit it.

[50'minimums]

Its not a matter on knowing or not knowing conditions, it truely is always a series of calculated risks.

Of course it is, that's why they had a preplanned reject point, to minimize the risks, and avoid an accident. The question is why did the 2 crew members not stick to the plan?

It was the break through incident I was speaking of. As far as the the other incident is concerrned for what ever reason the t/o was continued past the point of planed rejection is not for me to speculate.

[Mad Flying Ace]

Hey mag check

What do you know about offstrip to keep pushing for an answer as to why they did what they did - you're coming across as an arm chair critic - you don't know all the facts -wait for more info before passing judgment!

Have a nice day, dammit!

regards,

MFA

[pilotwhoisneverhome]

Glad to hear everyone is OK. Sad to hear SJB is at the bottom of the ocean. Tough work that sea ice flying.

[mag check]

Hey mag check

What do you know about offstrip to keep pushing for an answer as to why they did what they did - you're coming across as an arm chair critic - you don't know all the facts -wait for more info before passing judgment!

Have a nice day, dammit!

regards,

MFA

I apologise for pushing for answers, and while we don't have all the facts, the facts posted tell a bit of a story.
I would not have an issue with what happened if the report said they tried to stop at the reject point, but the aircraft continued, and was damaged.
The report says that they continued well past the reject point, staggered into the air, flew for a bit, hit the ground a couple of times, THEN tried to stop, and damaged the plane.

Unless the "facts" are that the throttles were stuck, and took both crew that extra time to get them pulled back, then the story is pretty clear. Pilot Error.

While I have all of 30 minutes flying a twin otter, I would imagine that a reject point is the same as what I use. If you pick a point that you MUST be airborne by, stick to it. You can always backtrack and try again, with the added benefit of having some packed tracks.

[dozzer]

first off, "mag check" have you ever flown off strip in your life?
No I'm not a pilot, I'm just a lowly grease monkey AME. But i have flown with a lot of the Borek twin otter pilots and and for you to imply pilot error without knowing the facts or even knowing anything about off strip flying is ludicrous. Keep your opinions to yourself and don't you dare start slagging my pilots(and if you knew me i'm not a huge fan of pilots to begin with). and that goes for a lot of you know it alls out there. Off strip otter guys are some of the few pilots that we mechanics can actually stand.

[Tuk U]

I apologise for pushing for answers, and while we don't have all the facts, the facts posted tell a bit of a story.
I would not have an issue with what happened if the report said they tried to stop at the reject point, but the aircraft continued, and was damaged.
The report says that they continued well past the reject point, staggered into the air, flew for a bit, hit the ground a couple of times, THEN tried to stop, and damaged the plane.

Unless the "facts" are that the throttles were stuck, and took both crew that extra time to get them pulled back, then the story is pretty clear. Pilot Error.

While I have all of 30 minutes flying a twin otter, I would imagine that a reject point is the same as what I use. If you pick a point that you MUST be airborne by, stick to it. You can always backtrack and try again, with the added benefit of having some packed tracks.[/quote]


Seems like a pretty sensible statement your making their MAG, don't worry about the comments your getting on here, ya can't fix stupid, specially the AME kind.... Later dude

[mag check]

have you ever flown off strip in your life?

Yes. Skiis, and floats, which is why I understand the need for a reject point, and the potentially fatal consequences of not sticking to it.

No I'm not a pilot, I'm just a lowly grease monkey AME

I'm an AME as well, however I don't consider it to be a lowly position.

don't you dare start slagging my pilots

Why don't you go ask "your" pilots what happened. You seem to be pretty confident that it wasn't pilot error, maybe it was a mechanical defect that you missed because of your self esteem problem?

Seems like a pretty sensible statement your making their MAG, don't worry about the comments your getting on here, ya can't fix stupid, specially the AME kind.... Later dude

Thanks Tuk, imagine if it wasn't nice soft gently sloping snow in front of them, and was instead a cliff, open water, or trees. Would they still ignore their reject point?

[Zy]

It is quite obvious that you do not have all the facts here, since if it were "nice soft gently sloping snow", I highly doubt their would have been as much damage done to the aircraft, if any.

[Ref Plus 10]

To Whom It May Concern:

I know both pilots involved in the KBC incident very well, neither of which are cowboys, both very well trained, and the captain being one of the most experienced Twin Otter pilots in the world.

Can anyone tell me the temperature, snow depth and condition, wind, exact location of the proposed takeoff area, slope, terrain, and aircraft performance for that particular aircraft on the day? Unless this information is known, although a possibility, I would find it extremely ludicrous to infer that there is no other reason to have continued the takeoff than pig-headedness. I consider these comments to be nothing more than an uneducated opinion, and those of you who feel it necessary to take this thread (as have so many others) into the downward spiral of name calling and mud slinging, should give your heads a collective shake.

Smarten up, for everyone's sake. There is simply no reason for it. I joined this forum in order to (hopefully) learn a thing or two from people's experience, and maybe contribute a thing or two from my experiences. You who's priorities are putting down others in the name of justifying an action should find something better to do, nobody benefits, except to propel the sprial further.

Thank you for your time.

Ref

[Mad Flying Ace]

+1
well said Ref!

regards,

MFA