Gogal accident report

[GyvAir]

I rather hope those passengers aren't reading this thread.

[Diadem]

If the leading edges were as shown in the report photo, there's effectively a small stall strip created all along the leading edge at the lines between clean boot and iced boot, making it potentially worse than a fully ice-covered leading edge.

The PIC had the same visual as we see in that frame, so that is easily the purpose for the "tapping". It might look futile from the passengers point of view; yet if that was what worked the boot at least would be ice free.

Those ridges of catch look fairly brittle there, so likely not much of a tap is required then. A minute or two does a lot. Obviously still other areas with ice.

Tapping the boot won't do anything to get rid of the ice covering the entire top of the wing. Obviously the pilot knew there was ice on the wing, and chose not to even inspect it properly, let alone remove it. That's not a failure of memory, that's pure, unadulterated laziness.

[pdw]

I rather hope those passengers aren't reading this thread.

Lots of passengers probably read these threads, perhaps not those pax in particular; yet those that do, one would hope they'd understand it's OK to protest or ask questions about safety issues ... like weight or weather ... and get-home-itis. 'Seeing ice' too, except if not visible to them there would'nt be a concern to bring to attention.

(The top and tail really aren't visible from in there either.)

[Illya Kuryakin]

pdw...three words. Do you fly?
Interesting read. Bit long wined though. Had ice....should have cleaned the wing. That's pretty much it.
Although there were a couple of interesting points. Windshield anti freeze, mixed in a five gallon pail of hot water, will get you home. So will real airplane de ice fluid.
The clean wing concept is there because it makes it safe for everybody. Why are we arguing about it?
One question I have...why was the aircraft there at 1600 the previous day for a next morning flight? In November? Crew change? Unload, reload, go. It's winter. It's a Caravan. Any questions?
Wing covers....if it's cold and windy, you don't need them. Ditto with cold snow. Just sweep them. The snow acts as a wing cover ad prevents frost build up.
Don't know the company, so I don't know the pressure on the pilot. So, I won't go there. But, if you're running single pilot, at least send the guy on an FSI course on the airplane. Don't feed me the "it's a VFR DAY ONLY" operation. Not buying it.....if he was VMC, where'd the ice come from?
Fly safe
Illya

[jpilot77]

How can transport allow a 703 operator (beside float operators) to be day VFR only? It's one thing for 702 ops to be day VFR but 703 should pretty much be IFR and night compliant. You just know that they will flying IFR anyways might as well force them to do the training to go along with it as well.

[Illya Kuryakin]

How can transport allow a 703 operator (beside float operators) to be day VFR only? It's one thing for 702 ops to be day VFR but 703 should pretty much be IFR and night compliant. You just know that they will flying IFR anyways might as well force them to do the training to go along with it as well.

That's my thoughts.
Illya

[shimmydampner]

How can transport allow a 703 operator (beside float operators) to be day VFR only?

For starters, many 703 operators run single pistons. l don't believe for one second that an IFR OC would have prevented this and you can't legislate common sense or good decision making.

[lilflyboy262]

As Illya pointed out before. That level of ice build up doesn't form from flying in clear blue sky. They were IMC at some point.

@PDW, you are asking why this accident occurred this time and not the last few hundred times that the plane departed like this? Simple. The holes in the swiss cheese lined up this time.
At that speed, AoA, weight, ice build up etc etc all came together in one go to cause this plane to fall.

Wasn't there some revisions to the standard pax weights in 2012 which read something along the lines of standard weights can be used but if the pilot suspects that there is deviation from the standard weights then they must be weighed?
Also wasn't there something stupid like an approved person who could judge the weights or something of the like?
TC has basically taken away the excuse to use standard but knowing that you are overweight.

[pdw]

The weight questions might need some more discussion, at least to clarify (now that the ice factor has been beat into submission).

[Illya Kuryakin]

The weight questions might need some more discussion, at least to clarify (now that the ice factor has been beat into submission).

Just to clarify for you, pdw.
A dirty (contaminated wings) airplane might not fly at any weight.
A clean airplane might not fly if too heavy.
A dirty and heavy plane probably will not fly.
I've flown a few Caravans. They don't mind weight (to a point) if their clean.
They don't really mind a bit of ice.
They don't really like being both at the same time.
Hope this helps.

This thread should have been....he should have cleaned the wings....THE END
ILLYA

[Illya Kuryakin]

A pilot and 7 pax isn't too far out there for a Van. Assuming everybody had 50 pounds of crap, and they had, 1400 pounds of fuel??? Not out of the realm of do ability for the mighty Van? The pictures of the wing is misleading though. Looks like pretty much just broken leading edge ice, disrupted by the boots the day before? There prolly wouldn't be contamination on the top surface, plus they did cover it over night. There's more going on here. Hope they looked beyond the ice. Don't believe that ice would have done it alone. Thoughts?
Illya

[pdw]

Nicely outlined.

I'd noticed a fair number of Van accident reports in the lists; countries like no-ice Africa for example, where they allow 14 seats and loading gets extra heavy, where on occasion there's either not enough power on the early climbout or the ITT got high so quick then (ie engine damage).

An overload is on its own demanding a lot more power to get up to desired speed; yet once airborne, how much greater drag for a "600lbs" over on a pod/grand (how much extra power does it equate to).

If clean concept take-off (still keeping the weight issue separate from the other for a moment) how much do "600lbs" over MTOW contribute alone to increasing the stall speed ? Nothing ?

[Illya Kuryakin]

pdw......seriously. Are you a pilot ?
Illya

[Colonel Sanders]

I had a dream last night that pdw
and I were announcing for the TV
coverage of a Red Bull air race.

He was doing colour commentary
during the slow-motion replays of
the pylon clips.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJJvs7WrNPE

[pdw]

pdw......seriously. Are you a pilot ?
Illya

Yeah I'm a pilot. Once a pilot always a pilot. I'm always up for retraining though.

I've never flown around MUCH anywhere near the stall speed at any weight (after attaining the PPL) excepting in flare. The Van POH gives that speed (63kts from the report) at MTOW. Here we're seriously talking about flying at a weight well ABOVE the manufacturers specs. Yet overloading the plane has nothing to do with leaving ice on it ... does it ? Here they are blended into one as the cause, which might be a mistake if one is allowed to mask the other's importance, or if together they mask any other vital/deciding factor(s).

Two major separate deals are combined here (report lists them as the main factor together), overloading with ice; one takes away LIFT (below a limit) while the other adds WEIGHT (beyond a limit).

TSB reports often re-itterate minimum 5 items as factors, the "holes" that line up. One of the reasons heard is that few minds can retain active thinking on more than 5 things at one time. The 5 "holes" reaches a memory maximum and something important is missed in the process. More than 5 can "line up"; it's seldom less.

[GyvAir]

You're not really doing much to convince our Russian spy of your flying credentials, PDW. I'm still trying to get an idea of what your aim is here? Do you really think you can better quantify the weight of the different factors leading to an accident like this? And what sort of benefit would be realized from putting that fine a point on things?

Let's compare this to a simple winter car accident..

Car A stops at a school crossing. Car B slides into the back of Car A.

Road conditions: Ice and snow
Weather: Wintery
Car B may have been traveling too fast for conditions
Car B didn't have the best of tires on it
Car B's brakes were a little grabby
Car B's driver may have been thinking more about his phone that just buzzed in their pocket and the fact that they were going to be late for work for the second time that week than the road situation ahead.
Car A stopped too quickly when the crossing guard signaled traffic to stop. (In the expert opinion of the driver of Car B, at least)

Was one factor the greatest contributor to causing the accident? Did one factor affect the other factors? Had the driver of Car B been adequately trained for the road conditions? Have we missed a possible additional reason that Car B failed to be stopped in time?

Answer: It doesn't matter. All of the factors were the responsibility of the driver of Car B to eliminate, mitigate or accommodate for appropriately. The nature and possibility of all the contributing factors should be well known to anyone choosing to drive in the conditions at the time of the accident. Knowing exactly how negligent the driver of Car B was on each individual factor isn't going to add much value to the accident report.
As the Colonel likes to point out every now and then: There are no new ways being discovered to crash an airplane. (Or a car)

[Sidebar]

... overloading the plane has nothing to do with leaving ice on it ... does it ? Here they are blended into one as the cause ...

pdw, I think you're obsessing on "one cause." This report has a number of "contributing factors" as listed below:

Findings as to causes and contributing factors

1. The aircraft departed Snow Lake overweight and with an accumulation of ice on the leading edges of its wings and tail from the previous flight. As a result, the aircraft had reduced take-off and climb performance and increased stall speed, and the protection afforded by its stall warning system was impaired.
2. A breakdown in the company’s operational control resulted in the flight not operating in accordance with the Canadian Aviation Regulations and the company operations manual.
3. As a result, shortly after departure, the aircraft stalled at an altitude from which recovery was not possible.

What you perceive as "one cause" (ice and overweight) are two of many factors that caused this accident. I think the fact they were both overweight and contaminated is indicative of a culture of tolerating risk that should be unacceptable. In other words, it was just a matter of time before Gogal had an accident.

No surprises here. These lessons were already learned 10 or 15 years ago.

Any other Caravan operators out there taking off with ice and overweight? How long until they plant one into a crater?

[Illya Kuryakin]

Any other Caravan operators out there taking off with ice and overweight? How long until they plant one into a crater?

Why limit the question to Caravan operators? The above is a recipe for accidents in any type.
Illya

[pdw]

I'm still trying to get an idea of what your aim is here? Do you really think you can better quantify the weight of the different factors leading to an accident like this? And what sort of benefit would be realized from putting that fine a point on things?

The "benefit" is that less LIFT more WEIGHT is the reality this pilot chose to GO with, but that an unexpected reality of inadequate THRUST ...mainly from a customary 'powering back' ... triggers the greater DRAG of being slower, an extra/unexpected curve led into mostly by the weak thinking this departure is so doable/easy with the available power.

Putting that "fine a point on things" is lured out of an observation something like what Sidebar suggests, that what was understood "10-15 years ago" might still be the fate of some that are not learning from these "craters". The lesser limiting factors of why this plane does not fly (straw that broke the camels back) on this early Sunday morning may have to be illustrated in all available detail just to portray every extra that gave it less chance or that was absent on another day where it worked. How else can the last hold-out of these doubters learn (who knows) that could even be thinking they are executing wisely when really not ?

EDIT:(last line clarification) No pilot attempts a take-off if not sure it will succeed, so if there are any "extra" contributors to the 'failure to climb' as it evolved in this take-off accident scenario IMO it's got to be part of the aftermath discussion, esp if it is so inevitable that some pilots / readers are still going to find themselves exposed to this type of decision-making down-the-road/ somewhere.

[Chuck Finley]

PDW: Are you a narrator for the CBC?

[GyvAir]

Uhmmm.. OK.. as you were, then.

[Diadem]

How else can the last hold-out of these doubters learn, who knows, that could even be thinking they are executing wisely when really not ?

pdw, you're not even writing legible sentences. Not only is it impossible to understand the point you're trying to make, it's impossible to read what you've written.

[burhead1]

[pdw]

(the previous post is edited for clarity)

.... knew there was ice on the wing, and chose not to even inspect it properly, let alone remove it. That's not a failure of memory, that's pure, unadulterated laziness.

OK, thought "unadultered" would be something to look at, so in researching it ... found also "well adapted laziness" (habitual/planned short cuts etc).

Tilting the discussion in that direction maybe was not such a bad idea after-all; at least not disrespectful in the way it might seem at first.

[lilflyboy262]

The horse is dead PDW. Please stop flogging it.