Faith in the machine

binderdundat · Post by **binderdundat** » Thu May 10, 2007 7:56 am

Maybe!? You cant make such bold statements accusing fraud and negligence and then follow up with so many maybes. If somebody perpetrated fraud then sue! Any lawyer would take a case like that shows blatant fraud or negligence that on contingency basis. If somebody committed fraud, they cant hide behind any WCB regulations. If you are not taking that quote out of context then post the rest of the report with all the other documents that you have scattered over the Internet. If you aren’t sure then save your slander until you are sure.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Thu May 10, 2007 8:44 am

Binderdundat, all five guys were on their way to work. That means that they were covered by WCB, which in turn means that the AMO, just like MJM, is protected from civil suit by the Worker's Compensation Act. This is one of the many things I see as being a problem, and hope to get an official body to pay attention and change. If you don't believe me, you can read the Act for yourself, or talk to a lawyer (both of which we have done, many times).

Conversely, they can sue me, as MJM threatened to do. However, since I have not said anything (or written anything) that I cannot prove, I am not concerned about this. Oh, and "all the other documents that (I) have scattered over the Internet" are mostly available through links on my website. I have not posted the report from TCCA in full, and I have no plans to do so. As I said, if you would like to see it, you can tell me who you are, or you can request a copy through Access to Information

carholme · Post by **carholme** » Thu May 10, 2007 8:46 am

binderdundat;

As a first time poster, regarding the maintenance issue, one has to wonder if you have a ulterior motive.

If you read the circumstance of the accident, you will note that it was TC who made mention of the maintenance irregularities as is their job. As TC sent the information to her, she is free to do with it as she pleases. It is a matter of public record.

Your interpretation suggests that you read everything that has been published before accusing anybody of anything.

carholme

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu May 10, 2007 9:02 am

If you aren’t sure then save your slander until you are sure.

Not trying to be anal, but slander is spoken, written is lible.

flyingsafely · Post by **flyingsafely** » Thu May 10, 2007 7:29 pm

Maybe someone working for the AMO was friends with the owner of MJM or used to work for MJM and this somehow affected his/her judgement.

I work with the AMO that last performed maintenance on AQW. I work with some of the finest guys in the industry. Maintaining floatplanes on the West Coast requires integrity, skill, knowledge and good judgement, and guys who lack any of those assets don't last long in this company.
Nobody on our crew was "friends with the owner of MJM". Most of us have never met him.
Our customers often become friends, but that camraderie does not lead to someone taking chances on maintenance. Nobody here would allow a plane to fly if they thought it wasn't safe.
Although the Logbooks were taken by TSB immediately after the accident, we have the compuerized records here. What goes in the Tech Logs goes in the Journey Log. There are no entries in one that is not in the other. Those entries are also in our computer system, as are the invoices to MJM Air. MJM was billed for all the work performed, and everything that MJM was billed for is in the Log Books. There was no work performed that was not recorded, and there was no " major repairs .... performed without required data and without required certification" at our AMO.
The plane had been signed off as airworthy by a crew who would not release a plane that wasn't airworthy. It had flown for many hours after the last inspection with no problems, and had been flying the morning of the day of the accident and the pilot had not reported any problems.
The Campbell River aviation community is small: we are pilots,mechanics, spouses, mariners and friends and we were all deeply affected by the loss of AQW.

Nancy Marshall

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Thu May 10, 2007 8:09 pm

Nancy, I don't doubt that you believe 100% of what you say, but I know for a fact that one of the people working at the AMO used to be the operations manager for MJM.

I did not pull " major repairs .... performed without required data and without required certification" out of a hat. It came from TCCA Safety Inspectors M&M after they inspected the wreckage in December 2006. They may not have been the ones to have done the repairs ( and if not - who did ? ), although I don't know how they failed to notice all the repairs to the deck coamings (which are not allowed) or how they (or whoever it was) forgot to seal the hatches. Go ask the owner if they've received the enforcement notice. If not, I've got a beef with TCCA. It's bad enough we can't get them to compare the maintenance records with the billing to MJM to ensure that the aircraft had actually been out of service for the required hours to do the required ADs on the required flight hours.

Do you know for a fact that the pilot had "not reported any problems"? That may be true, but one of the passengers on the first flight told me he seemed nervous. Why? I don't know.

The entire community of Campbell River was affected by the "loss of AQW" you are right. But communities from the north tip of the island to Ladysmith, over to the Sunshine Coast, the Queen Charlotte Islands, spotted around BC and the rest of the country, not to mention just about every coastal logging camp - are still affected by the loss of these five fathers, brothers, sons, husbands, cousins, friends .... we don't care about AQW.

flyingsafely · Post by **flyingsafely** » Thu May 10, 2007 10:16 pm

I know for a fact that one of the people working at the AMO used to be the operations manager for MJM.

Hi Widow,

Yes he was. I understand he helped set up the company, but I don't think he had warm and fuzzy feelings for the owner.

flyingsafely

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Fri May 11, 2007 11:17 am

flyingsafely, I take back what I said before about believing your belief. As Mr. A's life partner and bank roll, I trust you about as much as I trust him.