Cloudhumper wrote:May not be an issue here, but I'd like to remind guys to remember to wear their shoulder straps. Too many people have been killed in survivable accidents due to a bump on the head.
That's a good reminder, Cloudhumper. As you suggest, there have been quite a few survivable accidents where occupants have been incapacitated or killed when they have chosen not to wear the installed and available shoulder harness. The TSBC and NTSB databases contain many examples where the use of a shoulder harness would have made a difference.
In Canada, to know whether your aircraft must have a shoulder harness installed or not, here is the general operating and flight rule regulation: 605.24 - Shoulder Harness Requirements
NTSB Recommends Mandating Shoulder Harnesses
January 12, 2011 —The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Tuesday recommended that the FAA require aircraft without shoulder harnesses be retrofitted to include them. Aircraft currently equipped with shoulder harnesses would be required to be modified if the seat restraint system is incorrectly installed. The Board made the recommendations after a three-year study concluded that correctly installed shoulder harness/lap belt combinations provide significantly greater protection in general aviation (GA) accidents than a lap belt alone. The Board adopted six recommendations, which also included a revision of restraint systems certification standards.
The NTSB based its conclusion on an analysis of more than 37,000 GA accidents, finding that the risk of fatal or serious injury was 50 percent higher when an occupant was only restrained by a lap belt as compared to the combination lap belt and shoulder harness.
The NTSB recommended that the FAA further study the feasibility of requiring airbag-equipped aircraft. Currently, more than 30 aircraft manufacturers offer airbags as standard or optional equipment. Airbags were first approved for use in the pilot and co-pilot seats in GA aircraft in 2003. Today nearly 18,000 airbag-equipped seats are installed in more than 7,000 of the 224,000 GA aircraft in the U.S., according to the NTSB.
NTSB recommendations are non-binding; only the FAA has the authority to mandate such action through federal rulemaking process.
Sorry, lots of aircraft don't have them, and
TC will toss your @ss in jail if you install them
because there is no paper to do so.
The three different caravans I've chartered, all float planes, had a full harness. I was in the front right seat each time and it was fairly simple to hook in once used to the 4-way latches. The pilot's seat straplength-adjustments stay the same unless changing pilots, very simple, ... can't imagine they would not be used.
CBC article: "Getting to the crashsite was a challenge" said Gerald Strilkiwski, a contractor in the area. ......... "The scene was disturbing, with the entire cockpit smashed in."
Photo #02 shows only a topical view of a near pristine engine cowling, intact windshield. Both wings are still attached, ... so with the 51' wingspan it's resting wings near level .... but not necessarily the case before ground contact.
Cloudhumper wrote:May not be an issue here, but I'd like to remind guys to remember to wear their shoulder straps. Too many people have been killed in survivable accidents due to a bump on the head.
Flight helmets do work for those bumps on the head....
Helmets? In a Caravan? Air France is installing BRS in their Airbuses. Staying in bed when the weather is crappy, and you're flying VFR will do more for you than wearing a helmet.
Caravans have full harnesses in the front seats.
Yes, TC will have a shitfit if you install them without an STC. They'd also rather we grope around with an ADF than a GPS as well, so WTF do they know?
Back in the day, we installed a single shoulder strap in a Racer. Heavy braking (like a racer is even capable of heavy braking??) would cause you to actually pivot headfirst into the side of the cockpit. Hideous idea. Pay the big bucks and get a real five point system. The fifth point comes up between the legs and prevents you from sliding under the "dash board". Worth the investment. We need to take a lesson from the automotive world. There is NO reason air bags, (both frontal and curtain) couldn't be retrofitted to aircraft.
@Wally
Why do people drink and drive?
Why do people drive without seatbelts?
Why do people go below minimums?
Why do people fly overweight?
We all know its stupid, yet people still do it because they think they can get away with it. Until the one time that they don't.
Has there been anymore pictures of the crash site put up? I'm still curious to see the prop and the shape that it is in. Also apparently there was FZRA in the area and the plane was sitting outside all day?
ragbagflyer wrote:The vans all have the shoulder straps but you have to click them in separately each time you buckle up. Some guys don't.
Why would you not?
Mobility in the cockpit during flight perhaps? My five point harness (turn to unlock type) has an inertia reel for the shoulder straps with a manual reel locking mechanism that the checklist says is to be locked for takeoffs and landings. In flight the reel is unlocked which gives better mobility in the cockpit. If I still can’t reach something, the shoulder straps can be released from the harness buckle with a separate release lever without disturbing the lap and anti-G belts. Except on these rare occasions I always have all five in place and the reel locked for T/O and landings, however I understand why when I have an instructor on board (not pax, for them it is NOT an option) they prefer not to have the reel engaged as it restricts reaching some of the controls on my side.
ragbagflyer wrote:The vans all have the shoulder straps but you have to click them in separately each time you buckle up. Some guys don't.
Why would you not?
Mobility in the cockpit during flight perhaps? My five point harness (turn to unlock type) has an inertia reel for the shoulder straps with a manual reel locking mechanism that the checklist says is to be locked for takeoffs and landings. In flight the reel is unlocked which gives better mobility in the cockpit. If I still can’t reach something, the shoulder straps can be released from the harness buckle with a separate release lever without disturbing the lap and anti-G belts. Except on these rare occasions I always have all five in place and the reel locked for T/O and landings, however I understand why when I have an instructor on board (not pax, for them it is NOT an option) they prefer not to have the reel engaged as it restricts reaching some of the controls on my side.
I have lots of time in caravans and if memory serves the shoulder belts have inertia reels....someone correct me if am wrong. Also, everything in that cockpit is reachable for the left seat pilot unless he wants to reach over to the CP panel...
I could see removing them in cruise. This aircraft just took off. I find it hard to believe that anyone would not use the full restraint system during landing and takeoff.
Anyways, back on topic, even with full restraints engaged, i imagine that serious head injury would be likely for the pilot in such an accident, and hence higher likelihood of a fatality.
Shoulder belts are Inertial. There is nothing out of reach of the pilot.
Removing the shoulder straps will also unlock the lap belt and the crotch belt with this set up.
The metars applicable are 1500Z / 9am, ... if current while taxiing for departure. A number of stations around the route that report sky conditions indicated clear (WX history), including the destination airport. Not able to find the metar near the departure airport.
The metars applicable are 1500Z / 9am, ... if current while taxiing for departure. A number of stations around the route that report sky conditions indicated clear (WX history), including the destination airport. Not able to find the metar near the departure airport.
Not sure where you're looking at, but around the departure airport they all show 1/2SM BR, FZFG and/or OVC002 (Thompson, The Pas, Flin Flon).
The metars applicable are 1500Z / 9am, ... if current while taxiing for departure. A number of stations around the route that report sky conditions indicated clear (WX history), including the destination airport. Not able to find the metar near the departure airport.
Not sure where you're looking at, but around the departure airport they all show 1/2SM BR, FZFG and/or OVC002 (Thompson, The Pas, Flin Flon).
I can't find that weather. I see low ceilings but vis 2 or more miles. If they were in fact departing IFR, I can't see any reason not too. Legally it's not an issue.
Northern Flyer wrote:
I can't find that weather. I see low ceilings but vis 2 or more miles. If they were in fact departing IFR, I can't see any reason not too. Legally it's not an issue.
They were VFR apparently (see above discussion). Here is the weather from ogimet.com:
CYNE is 105 miles southeast (upwind on Nov 18 AM), a couple of miles closer to Snow lake than CYTH . CYFO is 60 miles west, CYQH 90-miles southwest, CYTH 107 miles northeast. No metar found for snow lake airport.
CYNE (Norway House) Wundermap metar record 181500Z: SSE 5kts -7/-8 clear SLP167. The flight route from Snow Lake to Winnipeg passes 55 miles west of CYNE on a SSE course so it also influences that flightplanning.
Maybe you guys remember a Caravan that crashed into the lake shortly after takeoff at Point Pelee about 8 or 9 years ago? It was found that the plane was never deiced after sitting on the ground for awhile. This sounds similar.
The Caravan wing is sensitive to things like frost which, given the likely wx conditions at Snow Lake, would be likely to have accumulated on the wing during the time that the plane was sitting waiting for the wx to improve. A recent Free Press newspaper interview with one of the survivors seems to indicate that the plane barely, if at all, got out of ground effect after takeoff and crashed into the trees a few miles off the end of the runway.
Manitoba plane crash cause not clear, say investigators
Transportation Safety Board calls for changes to air taxi regulations
CBC News
Posted: Nov 27, 2012 2:22 PM CST
Last Updated: Nov 27, 2012 4:49 PM CST
Read 1 comments1
Federal Transportation Safety Board investigators took this photograph of the scene of the plane crash in Snow Lake, Man., on Nov. 19. Federal Transportation Safety Board investigators took this photograph of the scene of the plane crash in Snow Lake, Man., on Nov. 19. (Transportation Safety Board)
The federal Transportation Safety Board says it currently does not know why a small plane crashed in northern Manitoba last week, killing the pilot and injuring seven passengers.
The engine from the Cessna 208 aircraft that crashed near Snow Lake, Man., on Nov. 18.The engine from the Cessna 208 aircraft that crashed near Snow Lake, Man., on Nov. 18. (Cameron MacIntosh/CBC)
The Cessna 208B aircraft crashed shortly after takeoff in a densely wooded area near Snow Lake, Man., on Nov. 18. It was bound for Winnipeg, about 700 kilometres south.
The crash killed pilot Mark Gogal, 40. The plane was operated by Gogal Air Service, which is owned by his father.
The seven passengers, employees for Dumas Mine Contracting, were injured. They were all last reported to be in stable condition in hospital.
Investigators with the Transportation Safety Board showed reporters parts of the wreckage on Tuesday.
Peter Hildebrand, the TSB's manager of regional operations, said the crash is the latest in a disturbing trend when it comes to small air carriers.
"There have been far too many air accidents — air taxi accidents in particular — often with fatalities. Snow Lake is another unfortunate example," Hildebrand told reporters.
"Over the last 10 years, 91 per cent of commercial aircraft accidents in Canada involved smaller operators."
Board calls for stricter rules
The TSB has counted 134 deaths from air taxi crashes over the past decade — some 77 per cent of all air traffic fatalities.
The Transportation Safety Board showed reporters the propeller from the plane that crashed near Snow Lake on Nov. 18.The Transportation Safety Board showed reporters the propeller from the plane that crashed near Snow Lake on Nov. 18. (Shawn Benjamin/CBC)
The Cessna 208B that crashed in Snow Lake is considered to be an air taxi and did not have a flight data recorder installed, as it was not required under current federal regulations, Hildebrand said.
Air taxis, which hold fewer than nine passengers, are subject to regulations that are less strict than planes that carry more than nine passengers, but Hildebrand said air taxis should also be required to have safety management systems in place.
The safety board is reiterating a call for the federal government to require flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders on small planes, as it already does on larger ones.
It has previously called on Transport Canada to toughen safety standards for smaller aircraft, but has not had a response, Hildebrand said.
As to why air taxis account for a high percentage of accidents, Hildebrand said there is no one factor.
"They're just having a lot more accidents from every type of risk, from collisions with other aircraft, flight into adverse weather, collisions with terrain, loss of control … all the phases of flight are represented in these accidents," he said.
That is one hell of a long flight to fly VFR given the weather we know existed at the time.
seasonaldriver wrote:Maybe you guys remember a Caravan that crashed into the lake shortly after takeoff at Point Pelee about 8 or 9 years ago? It was found that the plane was never deiced after sitting on the ground for awhile. This sounds similar.
Had to pause and think about that Pelee accident. Very sad too. A heavy fuel payload added prior to the flight to the Island put that aircraft way over legal TOW for the planned quick-turn back to the mainland. The report confirms the heavy fuel payload carried. One passenger cancelled, leaving a seat vacant. CYPT has a similar rwy length to CJE4, and at the time (according to the Ontario accident photographs) was free of snow/ice.
Studying the winds back then, couldn't help noticing that KBKL on the south shore (to the southeast of Pelee) recorded SE winds 20-30mph. It could thus be calculated that a take-off from the Island's Rwy 27 at 4:30pm Jan17/2004 would have a flattened climbrate going into increasing tailwind component in early altitude. But, without a metar it would likely be impossible to identify anything of that nature going on in the immediate Snow Lake area, ... or calculate friction factor of any frozen precipitation on the runway.
EDIT: So yes seasonaldriver, it's definitely valid that it's similar; very high moisture and temps are close to the same. I remember an Ohio trucker (south of Pelee) saying that afternoon large snowflakes were freezing to his windshield at 25degF OAT -- that's 7 degrees F below freezing -- and making the wipers run rough over the flash-frozen material. One person on the Island described ominous clouds above, but no one seemed to be able to pinpoint exactly when the freezing material started.
