Airplane into building in Richmond.

[xsbank]

True, Cat, why is this guy suddenly supposed to be credible?

Give us some 'references' and we will promise to be polite.

[Cat Driver]

xsbank:

This forum can be a good vehicle for exchanging ideas and discussing things that affect those who work in aviation.

The problem with an anonymous forum is anyone can just jump in and say anything that comes into their minds weather it be factual or just plain stupid.

The rules are fairly easy to understand as to what one can post and opinions are fair game because opinions are just that, opinions.

However some of us choose to identify who we are for the simple reason that when we post something we had better make sure it is factual unless we qualify it as an opinion.

This diesel-10 made several direct attacks on me personally and as much as called me a liar for some of my allegations against some of TCCA's top management.

Just go read his posts and it is evident he has no knowledge of what I have been saying about the rot within the regulator.

Based on his contributions so far I want him to back up his "facts " about this accident in Richmond by posting where he got these " facts".

And just for the record diesel-10 if you have a problem with me or what I have said about TCCA contact me personally, rather than slam me from the protection of anonymity....

[Doc]

I went back and checked this guys post out. His credibility is circling the bowl. No doubt about it. His previous posts were indeed personal attacks on Cat. I'd tend to put him on "ignore". How would he know there was avgas on three floors? Or, that the aircraft was turning for the VOR? Perhaps he works for TSB, or maybe the CIA?

[Cat Driver]

Yeh, Doc there is no doubt about it diesel-10 came on the forum with one agenda, to try and derail my exposure of how corrupt TCCA is under Preuss and some of his buddies.

Here are the first words he/she posted:

I am heartily sick of reading Cat Driver's barrage of drivel about corrupt TC officials. This kind of defamatory personal attack is criminal libel. As well, it is contrary to the rules of this forum. If you have some kind of upset with TC in the Pacific region, then pursue it with them in a place other than here. Your unsubstantiated slander is clearly an attempt to use this forum to air your own agendas behind the anonimity of this web-site, and not to add value to this thread.

It is obvious that whoever this person is he/she either hasen't the faintest idea of what the problem is at the top of TCCA or he/she is part of the problem.

Just for the record Doc I have a thick skin and I also am very careful to post only facts that I can show proof of.

And I just detest people who work in government positions and feel they are above the laws they are sworn to uphold.

In a way they are lower than child molesters because a child molester is a deranged sick animal that at least has being deranged as an excuse for their actions.

[sky's the limit]

Man, I love the shit that goes on in this forum.....



stl

[Cat Driver]

Yeh, never a dull moment.

[golden hawk]

For those who are actually interested in the facts:
1. The gear was NOT extended. (The wheels are visible when retracted.)
2. The aircraft entered the 9th floor apartment.
3. Avgas WAS present on the 9th, 8th, and 7th floors.
4. The engines ARE turbocharged.
5. The Seneca was airborne for about a minute
6. It was in a right turn for the VOR.

9th floor??

[Alex YCV]

In BC, because housing is so expensive, they split the units vertically at 4 feet, so they can double the density. So you have to count 2 floors for each set of windows.

[Ogee]

I've been reading the ructions going on above about pilot error. I'm sure some of those observations are correct some of the time.

In an earlier post, I pointed out that one thing was obvious. THIS pilot was unable to control the altitude or direction of THIS airplane. If he could have, its fair to say he wouldn't have flown it into an apartment building.

Pilot error is forgetting to put enough fuel in, or reading the wrong altitude on an approach chart, or getting caught in a box canyon and that sort of thing. When he hit the apartment building, I don't think the pilot thought he was on final to Pitt Meadows. If he did, then I concede pilot error.

Other than that, it isn't pilot error when for reasons beyond your control, you aren't able to control your aircraft to make it do what you want to do.

[diesel-10]

"In BC, because housing is so expensive, they split the units vertically at 4 feet, so they can double the density. So you have to count 2 floors for each set of windows."

The Seneca hit the north side of the building.
The north side starts at floor 4.
4+5=9
9-1=8
Getting the hang of it yet, Alex?

[goldeneagle]

There were many many witnesses that commented on the same things such as the gear was down when it hit the building.

One witness was a pilot / instructor who actually saw the airplane as it lost directional control.

You gotta listen to the whole newscast cat, and keep in mind, the press is willing to shovel any drivel that sounds dramatic. The pilot instructor they had on went on and on about possible fuel exhaustion cuz there was no fire. Same 'experienced instructor in the vancouver area' claimed no knowledge of pitt meadows. Huh, red flag number one, what instructor in the lower mainland has no knowledge of pitt meadows??? Same instructor said many times on the newscast, there was no reason for the airplane to turn right, it's not done that way. Huh, huge red flag number two. If that instructor has actually ever flown vfr out of vancouver, then they would know, blasting off 08R vfr, pretty much always means 'right turn to the vor' and the takeoff clearance inevitably contains the verbiage 'right turn as soon as safe'. thirty + years in this game, and, I can count on one hand the number of times I blasted off vfr from 08R and the clearance was NOT a right turn as soon as safe.


Somebody grabbed thier 15 minutes of fame, spewing uninformed drivel at the news folks for a couple of hours, and not realizing any better, the news folks played it on for the whole time. I'd take any commentary from the pilot instructor with a huge grain of salt, because, they certainly didn't have the verifiable stuff right, no sense taking thier word on the unverifiable stuff.

Shortly after the incident, on this site, tons of speculation, most of it folks ready to make large wagers that the plane ran out of fuel, based on the 'no fire' observation. If they had bothered to listen to the news a little closer, they would have noticed, the fire department was busy evacuating the building, because of the large quantity of fuel spilled. The next day, Bill Yearwood from TC was on tv explaining, takes 3 elements to cause the fire, fuel, air, and a source of ignition. In this case, the ignition source must have been lacking, because there was no shortage of fuel spilled, and there was lots of air to feed a fire.

Now we have lots of speculation and insinuation about pilot age as the major factor. One thing I can say with certainty, the pundits on avacan, and to some extent the news folks, have picked up on pilot age. That means with 100% certainty pilot age was a non factor, because those two groups are ALWAYS 100% wrong in the speculation.

Some of the other recent accidents, it's pretty easy to see the 'same old shit' written all over them. Private airplanes flying up mountain valleys with 700 foot cielings, single engine airplanes losing an engine high over the rocks, all adds up to the 'same old shit'. This one is unique, and there is nothing 'same old' about it. Think it would be wise to sit back, and wait for more facts to come out before casting judgement on this one.

[xsbank]

The purpose is to pontificate, not cast judgement. Its what we do.

[sportingrifle]

Not to hijack the thread but there is a world of difference between wondering what/how something MIGHT have happened, and using unsubtantiated rumors coupled with a lack of understanding to express opinions about what probably DID hapen.

Remember the cargo 747 that failed to become airborne on take off from Halifax several years ago. The Avcanada pundits were at it before the fire was out. "My brother in law saw them take off and they departed from the intersection instead of the threshold." or "Someone heard a loud explosion before impact. The airplane was on fire before it hit the ground." or " The airplane overrotated and stalled. Probably the cargo bust loose inside."

Well it turns out that the crew were getting their TO performance data from a new laptop systen that they had never been trained to use. They accidentally used the weights and airport data from the previous leg. Lighter weight, longer runway. Contributing to this error was the fatigue brought on by their horrendous prior duty days. Curiousity is healthy but all the initial posting on the accident was just wasted electrons flying around cyberspace. Worse yet, when the causes were known, and valuable lessons to learned, there was hardly a wimper among us, as it was old news and we were all tilting at newer more exciting windmills.

I sense that there may be some of this going on with this post. Lots of information being added that may or may not be factual and that may or may not be relavant. An example is the aircrafts heading. We are all fixated on our multi rating flight test standards - no more than 10deg. (or whatever it is) heading change following an engine failure. The aircrafts heading change is being used to suggest that the pilot was - pick 1 - incapacitated, incompetant, had some other mechanical problem,- did I miss anything. First off, he may have been complying with an ATC clearance at the time. Until we hear ATC's side, we don't know. Secondly, a little trick used by tanker pilots following an engine failure was to use not quite enough rudder to maintain heading, (terrain permitting) and allow the heading to slowly drift off runway heading. This reduced rudder drag and allowed a very marginally performing airplane to climb a little better. I'm not advocating this or suggesting that this is what the pilot was doing. Merely pointing out that usually all is not what initially seems to be in the days following accidents. Thats why we have trained accident inspectors instead of just letting TC civil aviation inspectors go out and pronounce on the cause of the accident. (Iknow, I know, there are other political/legal reasons as well.)

It would be heartening to see 5 pages of thoughtful posting on this accident after the facts are known instead of before. Fly safe and have fun. SR.

[C-GPFG]

And here come the lawsuits...

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columb ... wsuit.html

[fogghorn]

And here come the lawsuits...

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columb ... wsuit.html

No offense to the deceased pilot, but shouldn't tc be the ones being sued? The pilot had several accidents within the last few years, why was he still allowed to fly? Is it really not time for restrictions to be put on pilots once they reach a certain age - especially when they begin to have accidents, such as the type of a/c they can fly, and to and from small airports only perhaps? Regardless of the persons experience, cognitive ability reduces, risk factors increase with their age - whether they want to admit it or not. TC seems to bear some of the responsibility for this.

[xsbank]

Can we lose the talk about age, please? There has been one dramatic accident that has focussed on an elderly pilot, but the accident statistics are showing this to be an anomaly. 'Senior' pilots are not dropping out of the air around us.

Maybe nobody under 30 should be allowed to fly because they are the ones that are actually having the majority of the accidents.

You cannot discriminate based on age and its not a problem anyway. Drop it.

[Widow]

The lawyers would have to get info through Access to Info in order to determine the culpability of TC ... I suspect they will have named a "John Doe" or two, to protect the ability to litigate against any negligence they find in the course of the accident investigation.

When there are pending lawsuits, accident investigations do tend to be speedier and more thorough.

That being said, while I agree that it is best to wait for all the facts before casting dispersion, I also feel that the TSB takes far too long to report (average for '06/'07 was 573 days) and make public their findings (which may never happen if they don't get around to translating into both official languages) - only one report has been released through the TSB site regarding accidents in 2006. After that much time, people have forgotten.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to have a seperate forum for accident and accident report discussion.

[Hedley]

discriminate based on age

Clearly almost all aircraft accidents in Canada involve white male pilots, which is rather an obvious pattern.

It should be obvious that if we can somehow stop all white male pilots from operating aircraft in Canada, the number of aircraft accidents should drop.

Do I win a prize?

[North Shore]

Wiggled fingers and hit keys without thinking/knowing what I was talking about...sorry.

[Guido]

"In BC, because housing is so expensive, they split the units vertically at 4 feet, so they can double the density. So you have to count 2 floors for each set of windows."

The Seneca hit the north side of the building.
The north side starts at floor 4.
4+5=9
9-1=8
Getting the hang of it yet, Alex?

You are so totally full of shit, diesel.

[stopsquawk]

For those who are actually interested in the facts:
1. The gear was NOT extended. (The wheels are visible when retracted.)
2. The aircraft entered the 9th floor apartment.
3. Avgas WAS present on the 9th, 8th, and 7th floors.
4. The engines ARE turbocharged.
5. The Seneca was airborne for about a minute
6. It was in a right turn for the VOR.

9th floor??

Wow, I really love to be a super sleuth... let's see... do you count the bottom floor as one?... ok, probably... .so 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6..... OMFG!!! that lying bastard! It wasn't the 9th floor at all, but the 6th. Obviously he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Or does he?

Every news item I read or heard reported that the plane hit the 9th floor. One article stated that the part of the airplane that wasn't in the building "fell onto a parkade roof". The door you see at the bottom of the picture doesn't exit out onto the street, but onto a rooftop. Check out the building on Google Earth, and it's plainly visible.

Maybe just another example of drawing a conclusion based on a skewed set of information?

[Cat Driver]

And everyone should take your comments at face value stopsquawk.

Like this gem you posted on another thread?

They should probably mandate a "Condominium Avoidance Qualification" for pilots over 60 living flying from aerodromes situated near populated areas.

You are an idiot.

[v6g]

The Zhangs have no personal insurance, so there's no money to replace clothes, furniture or the family's Chinese herbs, Ngai said, adding that even the family cat ran away in the chaos.

I don't put much money on the fate of the cat in that neighborhood - number 39 special with fried rice anyone?

[diesel-10]

Guido, Guido, Guido!

When you gonna learn to totally read. Like, try the 100's of Google hits for Rosario Gardens.

Doncha hate it when you're wrong - totally? Capishe?

[tesox2]

Its actually spelled "capisce"