Accident in YRL Nov 10, 2013

[Jack Klumpus]

Friesen said the survivors -- one a co-pilot with Bearskin and the other a ticket agent with the airline -- are recovering in hospital in Winnipeg. He said both were on their way to Winnipeg at the time of the crash.

From the Winnipeg free press.

[Yqtmmoffat1980]

My sincerest sympathies and most thoughtful prayers to the families of victims. And my hopes for speedy recovery to the survivors. As someone with 10 years aviation experience, the majority of it spent working in emergency response planning and training all I can say is our focus needs to be the human tragedy that has occurred. There will be plenty of time to disect the mechanics of the accident but what happens in the immediate aftermath to the victims families and survivors will determine how the rest of their lives are affected.

[lilfssister]

I have split the speculation posts from this thread-facts and condolences may be posted here, all others will be moved to the speculation thread.

Reference a post back on page one-weather observers are required to do an "Accident Check" weather observation if an accident occurs in the vicinity of our airport, hence the "Accident " remark in the ob.

[C-GPME]

My deepest sympathies to everyone involved. I flew at the Bear for almost 2 years and this accident really hits home. I know alot of people there, and its not fair. The training I received from Bearskin was among the best out there. I often say "thats where I learned how to fly". Some of those captains flew those metros when they were new. I hope the 2 survivors make a speedy recovery, and our thoughts and prayers are with the friends and families of the victims.

Fly safe please people,

Cheers,

PME

[2.5milefinal]

The Bear is a good place and it is truly sad that have to go through something like this. My thoughts go out to all those involved.

[Been_there]

Were they on one engine? Did they have a fire? This would have been a recorded transmission on 122.3 or centre? Why is this relevant? Engine failure, I'd have headed to YWG, fuel permitting. Fire? Land right where you are.
I know you read this Peter. Speak up.

I don't know about you, but I always overfly a perfectly good airport when I'm single-engine. It makes more sense to fly 150 miles further with zero power plant redundancy.

[Doc]

Were they on one engine? Did they have a fire? This would have been a recorded transmission on 122.3 or centre? Why is this relevant? Engine failure, I'd have headed to YWG, fuel permitting. Fire? Land right where you are.
I know you read this Peter. Speak up.

I don't know about you, but I always overfly a perfectly good airport when I'm single-engine. It makes more sense to fly 150 miles further with zero power plant redundancy.

Actually, I doubt VERY MUCH that you've "Been there".

[switchflicker]

"I don't know about you, but I always overfly a perfectly good airport when I'm single-engine. It makes more sense to fly 150 miles further with zero power plant redundancy."


Not only that, but the passengers have paid good money to a) have a thrilling ride and b) get as much airtime as possible. The uncomfortable feeling that the passengers might exhibit is just expressing the joy they feel when they see a propeller not turning anymore (and the other one making a bit more noise).

Now the extra airtime and risk (remember, not all passengers like to fly) the pilot chooses may also attract the attention of the insurance company if all the fun of single engine flight is the cause of something like bad fuel or too much air in a fuel tank causing the 'good' engine to turn south too. Don't forget to ask yourself 'Why is the 'good' engine still running. Not why is the 'bad' engine not running.

I guess we should all look up to and respect our fellow pilots who don't have the 'extra' engine. They don't go around worrying just they have but one power plant to get them safely to destination. Certainly their motto is 'one engine - continue...engine fire- land' We dual engine guys should try to be more like them.

I wonder if the approved training program would continue to be approved if it was spelled out in writing that the pilot was expected to overfly a suitable airport in favor of one that had better restaurants and more choices of hotels when an engine became disagreeable to the task of providing power and chose to take a timeout. Only if said engine was to catch fire was the pilot to declare an emergency ( and don't say the Mayday words on the radio either) was the pilot allowed to put the whole operation to rest as soon as he safely could. I guess it would have to be spelled out what constitutes a fire too. Some aircraft types have the photocell fire detectors which can give false readings in certain light conditions.


I sincerely hope the readers of this diatribe are able to distinguish sarcasm from truthful musings. Because the above is the biggest bunch of bullshit ever written.

You older fellows can choose to do what you will (by yourself), but if you younger captains are thinking that overflying a suitable airport for convenience considerations is a good deal 'cause you read it here on AvCanada, DON'T. The sooner you can safely get your aircraft on the ground when bad things happen (and an engine failure is not a good thing) the better. That's what good decision makers are made of.

Sw Out

[Doc]

Rant all you want mate. You're missing the fact that these passengers died at this "suitable" airport. Or, did you come to the party late?

If you have a problem you can live with, (I wasn't there....and neither were you) Winnipeg has better equipment, they would have more time to deploy this equipment......there are considerations you and I know nothing about....sometimes it's a judgement call. You make your judgement calls, I'll make mine.

[Doc]

Were they on one engine? Did they have a fire? This would have been a recorded transmission on 122.3 or centre? Why is this relevant? Engine failure, I'd have headed to YWG, fuel permitting. Fire? Land right where you are.
I know you read this Peter. Speak up.

I don't know about you, but I always overfly a perfectly good airport when I'm single-engine. It makes more sense to fly 150 miles further with zero power plant redundancy.

I've seen the odd PC12 fly much more than 150 miles with zero power plant redundancy....exactly, what is your point?

[Maynard]

yrl-ywg is a 45 min flight, on 2 engines. Probably 1:05 on 1. Best case scenario, if it were a normal, feathered single engine failure, I'd see no reason to overfly a decent runway (YRL), and chug along for over an hour wondering if my good engine is going to pack it in. (unless of course the weather was below mins). Of course, there are many variables which make up different decision making thoughts, but the variables in this scenario (weather, load, airport), YRL would have been my first choice.

[JayVee]

Well said Maynard.

[snoopy]

Roger that.

[cncpc]

I'd be very surprised if this was a normal, feathered, single engine failure.

Other than that, sound logic Maynard.

[mattas350]

I rarely post but I feel I have to. I Totally agree with Maynard, Doc's suggestion of overflying YRL when your minutes away from landing in YRL to go to YWG is absolutely stupid and unsafe and I would question his decision making in this. Say the crew did this, had a engine issue and decided to continue on for a hour plus on one powerplant to YWG and the remaining engine crapped out on the way to YWG, well now we got a SAR incident to find them now (and maybe more deaths?) and if that happens the illustrious/All knowing Doc would be saying "Well they were minutes from YRL I would of landed there instead, why continue to YWG?"

Sure we don't know the exact circumstances, and correct me if im wrong on usually with engine fire or failure issues the POH and checklists say LAND ASAP at a suitable aerodrome, well YRL is paved, the wx for the approach was above mins according to the METAR, sure as hell I am gonna land their instead of limping all the ways to YWG on one engine (and who knows what else happened if it was a catastrophic mechanical malfunction and caused structural damage) and hoping the reamining good engine doesn't quit enroute, Now if YRL was below mins or the runway was questionable then yes it would be prudent to consider what are plan B, C, D to get down safely but when you have a perfectly good runway and approach in front of you, and no reason to NOT land their, most people would choose to land at the field 10 minutes away, this goes back to PPL level decision making.

So Doc, Say you were doing a similar flight, YXL-YQK and had a engine issue 10 mins from YQK, you would limp all the ways to YWG on one engine and hope it holds out?! Even if YQK was well above mins.

[boeingboy]

While I agree with those that say landing ASAP was/is the right choice. I have to ask why you are dumping on DOC for flying on one engine? Seems the only argument you make is - "Hope the other one doesn't pack it in"......why would it? Unless your out of gas, it should run no problem. It's on the other side of the plane and isolated in all ways from the other.

There are lots of single engine turbine aircraft that fly around for years without issue.

[Maynard]

Why did your engine fail? Are you confident enough that it was isolated to only one side to overfly a perfectly suitable airport? Everyone keeps comparing flying a twin engine on one engine, to a single engine aircraft. Flying a sound single engine airplane is a bit different then flying an unsound twin engine airplane, on one engine. Seems ignorant to sit there fat dumb and happy flying on one without thinking that the issue could affect your last lifeline....
Again, these are my thoughts. No ones flaming on Doc, and I'm not saying he's wrong, but I bet 90/100 people disagree with his statement...

[flyinthebug]

Again, these are my thoughts. No ones flaming on Doc, and I'm not saying he's wrong, but I bet 90/100 people disagree with his statement...

Doc is one of the closest friends and respected mentors I have in this industry...but even mentors can be wrong. In this particular case, I believe Doc is wrong. When you have a perfectly suitable airfield like YRL available to you, why would you fly another 50 mins to YWG on one fan? I get the part of the emergency equipment, but I don't see any other reason to terrify your passengers for another hour...when you could land safely (with wx above mins) on 5000 ft of pavement in YRL? Doc, please clarify for me and others why you would carry on to YWG (not including the emergency equipment theory). I may not fully understand why you would make this decision, so please explain. Maybe I and others can learn something here that we are missing. Thanks.

[Doc]

Again, these are my thoughts. No ones flaming on Doc, and I'm not saying he's wrong, but I bet 90/100 people disagree with his statement...

Doc is one of the closest friends and respected mentors I have in this industry...but even mentors can be wrong. In this particular case, I believe Doc is wrong. When you have a perfectly suitable airfield like YRL available to you, why would you fly another 50 mins to YWG on one fan? I get the part of the emergency equipment, but I don't see any other reason to terrify your passengers for another hour...when you could land safely (with wx above mins) on 5000 ft of pavement in YRL? Doc, please clarify for me and others why you would carry on to YWG (not including the emergency equipment theory). I may not fully understand why you would make this decision, so please explain. Maybe I and others can learn something here that we are missing. Thanks.

I'd be happy to. Circumstances alter cases. There are situations where I'm very comfortable carrying on single engine, and situations where I'd have the puppy on the ground ASAP! Again, I wasn't there. This particular case is a very bad example because we have really no idea what the emergency (if indeed there was one, assuming there was) and the end result could not have been any worse.
Reasons to solider on. Again, not in this specific case (because I wasn't there)...better ground facilities is huge. Time for those facilities to "gear up" for you arrival. More runways fo a successful in to wind landing. Winnipeg has a KEG!
Mattas350 asked if I had an engine issue 10 minutes from YQK, would I "limp" to YWG. NOPE. YQK is our maintenance base. However, if there were ANY issues with a landing at YQK......ANY AT ALL, then, I'd hit the PEG.
Guys, you're flying turbine twins. The are very happy on one engine. If you are uncomfortable flying one for an hour or so, single engine, you should all be flying PC12s?
My background differs slightly from the rank and file here, in that I've had several single engine affairs on twins (more than 25) some of the twins were borne before anybody on this site. Except CAT, but he's older than me.
Bottom line? There is NOTHING dangerous about spending an hour motoring along with one caged on a modern twin turbine. Time is not always "of the essence". Often, prolonging a flight rather than pounding it on (or almost?) the nearest piece of pavement is beneficial. Sometimes, it isn't. Again, it's a judgement call. I'll wait to see the cards I'm dealt before I bid. Sometimes my bid will be different than yours.
CIRCUMSTANCES ALTER CASES.

Just in case you all missed it....nowhere have I stated that this particular flight SHOULD have continued to YWG. I wasn't there....and neither were any of you.

[Old fella]

I have what I would consider a relativity decent background in twin turbine operations in my earlier years. Never had an actual engine failure (thankfully) but a few precautionary shut-downs not the same as having a fan quit, nevertheless it is still single engine. I agree with DOC, turbines can motor along on one and gives you time to get things together. On one shut-down I continued on to a better destination close to an hour’s flying time. I can’t comment on this particular accident because I have no background on that aircraft type.

[Doc]

I have what I would consider a relativity decent background in twin turbine operations in my earlier years. Never had an actual engine failure (thankfully) but a few precautionary shut-downs not the same as having a fan quit, nevertheless it is still single engine. I agree with DOC, turbines can motor along on one and gives you time to get things together. On one shut-down I continued on to a better destination close to an hour’s flying time. I can’t comment on this particular accident because I have no background on that aircraft type.

Most of my shut downs were precautionary as well, but a total failure, as long as it feathers okay and doesn't affect the handling characteristics is pretty much the same thing. As far as flying the airplane goes.

[CID]

Interesting. The last time I disagreed with Doc and the possible negative effects of his opinion, I got a one week "vacation" handed to me by Sulako. So a word of caution. Be careful who you disagree with on this forum.

Having said that, comparing a PC-12 with a Metro isn't helpful. It's like comparing a 737 to a Metro. The PC-12 is a normal category airplane that can't achieve commercial ops in more than Air Taxi (703). A Metroliner is a commuter category (or equivalent to it under SFAR41C) and can be operated commercially in the commuter operating category (704).

Furthermore, the PC-12 is in an exclusive "club" of single engine aircraft that are allowed to fly commercial IFR. That privilege was bestowed on a small group of single engine aircraft that the regulator deemed to meet the intent of the rules and the prescribed level of safety.

So as far as the level of safety is concerned, it is ludicrous to make comparisons like this. Very few pilots seem to have a handle on how the risk mitigation process for various aircraft design and operating categories play in to the big picture.

I think it's inadvisable, regardless of the circumstances in this accident, if you have an engine failure in a Metroliner and you are 10 minutes out from a suitable airport to land, you owe it to the passengers to do the right thing and land at that airport. It's not up to you at that point to determine if it's a common problem (contaminated fuel for example) or if the company will save a few shekels if you limp back to a maintenance base.

[cncpc]

Interesting. The last time I disagreed with Doc and the possible negative effects of his opinion, I got a one week "vacation" handed to me by Sulako. So a word of caution. Be careful who you disagree with on this forum.

Having said that, comparing a PC-12 with a Metro isn't helpful. It's like comparing a 737 to a Metro. The PC-12 is a normal category airplane that can't achieve commercial ops in more than Air Taxi (703). A Metroliner is a commuter category (or equivalent to it under SFAR41C) and can be operated commercially in the commuter operating category (704).

Furthermore, the PC-12 is in an exclusive "club" of single engine aircraft that are allowed to fly commercial IFR. That privilege was bestowed on a small group of single engine aircraft that the regulator deemed to meet the intent of the rules and the prescribed level of safety.

So as far as the level of safety is concerned, it is ludicrous to make comparisons like this. Very few pilots seem to have a handle on how the risk mitigation process for various aircraft design and operating categories play in to the big picture.

I think it's inadvisable, regardless of the circumstances in this accident, if you have an engine failure in a Metroliner and you are 10 minutes out from a suitable airport to land, you owe it to the passengers to do the right thing and land at that airport. It's not up to you at that point to determine if it's a common problem (contaminated fuel for example) or if the company will save a few shekels if you limp back to a maintenance base.

Well said. That is the real analysis. The powers that be have seen fit to limit the circumstances in which more than a few people have no redundancy as a feature of their flight.

I do think that Doc went a fair way to clarifying his point of view, and there may be circumstances in which going somewhere else would be the best choice. This incident has very different circumstances.

['CauseTheCaravanCan]

I guess we should all look up to and respect our fellow pilots who don't have the 'extra' engine. They don't go around worrying just they have but one power plant to get them safely to destination. Certainly their motto is 'one engine - continue...engine fire- land' We dual engine guys should try to be more like them.

PFFFT That's what I've been saying all along!

My condolences, respectfully. Two years is a long wait for some answers, especially for the families.

['CauseTheCaravanCan]

Hypothetically, Doc, if you did continue on from YRL to YWG, and the weather was pretty low everywhere, and it's already dark out, and the other engine quit too, somewhere in between the two points, whatcha thinkin' 'bout?
Set up a glide, and hope for the best? Find #1 Hwy on your GPS?
This had to have gone through your head during your numerous cross country flights with one dead fan.
Next to no multi time here, and I really have always wondered this.