Pacific Coastal lashes out - today's Globe and Mail

[Human Factor]

Well said beechnut.

When my wife and I found out who the pilot was it was like getting hit in the stomach with a sledge hammer....I still can't believe it.

I feel the same way, PM was a true gentleman and is missed terribly.

[_dwj_]

the Garmin 296 is the perfect VFR unit with its built in terrain warning and moving map. hard to believe he was unaware of the island infront of him. Very Sad, good on there compitition for not taking that flight.

The height function on a gps (especially a handheld) isn't the most accurate. I've seen mine suddenly change by 100 feet. And it looks as if in this pic the unit doesn't have a very good view of the sky, which probably doesn't help matters.

[beaverbob]

External antenae on this one

[Chuck Ellsworth]

A GPS when used as a situational awareness aid when flying VFR in marginal weather is for azimuth awareness only, vertical awareness is determined by looking outside at the surface of the earth.

Therefore the inaccuracies of the unit in the vertical plane has no bearing on the use of the GPS when flying VFR.

[Keepitsafe]

Pasco never pushed its pilots to fly in bad weather from what I've seen and and I can't imagine that has changed. You go to work and when you said no that was that.

That being said however when you are in Bella Bella as an example with a couple of Shorts worth of sports fishermen from Vancouver to be flown out by the Gooses and Beavers (normally the floatplanes depart just minutes apart in a group of three or more to the same destination) and this is the second day they have been weathered out the pressure to go is felt by the pilots as you want to complete your job of getting these people to where they are going and the flying you didn't do yesterday is added to flying you are supposed to do today.

You also know it is costing the company a lot of money to fly back and forth from Vancouver in the Shorts or Saab with the less than happy fisherman.

You are also getting paid by the mile however at Pasco you still got paid the mileage for the whole trip if you turned around and came back and even then I don't think that has much bearing on whether a pilot decides to go or not.

Some pilots take the personal pressure to fly better than others and I've seen a few go when all others said no. When that pilot makes it in and out now you start to question yourself whether you made the right decision not to go. I have then gone in this situation at several different companies (it happens at them all from what I've seen and heard) and regretted it - I have also gone and found the weather to be OK as well. You just never really know till you are out there in it if there is no weather stations along the route. The important thing is to have a plan B and always be able to turn around as soon as the weather falls below VFR even if your buddies keep on going or just don't go when you don't personally think you'd be safe. And don't depart in below VFR conditions. Sounds simple but its not when you feel your job, reputation or your date later that night is on the line.

VFR weather as far as I understand it is 2 miles visibility below 1000 feet agl and 300 feet from any obstacle - I take that as a 300 foot ceiling, please correct me if I am wrong.

It is illegal to start on a flight if the weather is below and forecast to be below that as per most operations manuals. Special VFR is approved in most ops manuals for ops in a control Zone when the weather is below 1000 foot ceiling and less than 3 miles - approval given by ATC down to 1 mile visibility while in the zone only. As soon as you leave the control zone you are flying illegal if the weather is less than 2 miles visibility flying below 1000 feet, something that is conveniently forgotten by a few eager to go pilots all winter on the West Coast. Some have the 1 mile limit with the extra training - a bs loophole really.

This crash has effected me greatly, the pilot was one everyone knew as a real gentleman. I feel that the weather that day was a factor, and like some of the posters above said accidents do happen in this challenging environment - I just hope that all VFR pilots on the coast will now be quicker to say NO I WONT GO UNTIL IT IS LEGAL VFR as per the company operations manual.

My beef with Transport Canada is that they sit up in their offices on top of the fog and watch floatplanes break the CARs by flying on top all winter - illegal even if it is in your ops manual because you CANNOT land in VFR conditions and fog is in the forecast. I've heard pilots talk of landing on instruments through the fog - good luck when your engine driven vacuum pump is no longer available so you are on partial panel, you aren't instrument rated or haven't flown IFR for a long time, you are suddenly thrown from a visual to an instrument situation with little warning and you can't see the water to flare as you fall like a rock with the extra drag of the floats. Some guys actually think they can pull this off. Or they think the chances are slim because they are behind a turbine. The pressure to fly is huge because its almost garunteed there will be a pilot on line that day that is willing to do it - every winter. Correct me if I am wrong on this. Talk about playing God with your unsuspecting passengers lives. My wish is the media gets a hold of this little bid of info THAT FLYING OVER THE FOG is not legal or safe so that passengers can be educated and report these unsafe practices.

On last thing that no one has mentioned is why didn't this aircraft have a SPOT onboard - a little unit that sends the GPS position to a Satellite so the position of the aircraft can be tracked so when it crashes you can narrow down the search. They are super cheap (I think 200 bucks a year) and every operator in Canada should be required to have one. The first Goose crash took awhile to find and this little unit would have saved a lot of time. Its not like an ELT that can be destroyed and not work - it gives the position every so many minutes so if it is destroyed at least it gave a position a few minutes ago.

Below is the weather along the route the day of the most recent Goose crash. Coastal pilots know the airports are often worse than over the water. Sometimes they are better. Again you don't know till you are out there or someone comes back with a pilot report. If you are the first to go along a certain route you are on your own. A phone call to other pilots along the route however - say up to Sechelt, just a few miles from the crash, the pilots would have said its crappy - they didn't turn a prop all day as far as I've heard.

According to the CADORs the flight departed at 1812 UTC. Not sure how a Special VFR was even given for the departure in less than a mile. Perhaps someone can answer that for me.

Vancouver

SP 17/11/2008 18:27->
SPECI CYVR 171827Z 00000KT 5/8SM BR SCT120 BKN220 08/ RMK
AC3CI1=
SA 17/11/2008 18:00->
METAR CYVR 171800Z 00000KT 1/2SM FG SCT120 BKN220 08/08 A3004
RMK AC3CI2 SLP174=
SP 17/11/2008 17:33->
SPECI CYVR 171733Z 09004KT 1/2SM FG SCT120 BKN220 08/ RMK
AC3CI2=


FT 17/11/2008 17:06->
TAF AMD CYVR 171706Z 1717/1818 10003KT 1/2SM FG OVC120
TEMPO 1717/1718 1SM BR BKN120 FM171800 VRB03KT 2SM BR
SCT005
TEMPO 1718/1719 3/4SM BR FM171900 12007KT P6SM FEW015
FEW120
TEMPO 1719/1720 2SM BR FM180200 14006KT P6SM BKN030
TEMPO 1802/1807 5SM BR BKN020 FM180700 10005KT P6SM BKN030
OVC090
TEMPO 1807/1811 5SM -SHRA BR BKN020 FM181100 10005KT P6SM
OVC030
TEMPO 1811/1816 5SM BR OVC020
BECMG 1816/1818 28010KT RMK NXT FCST BY 171800Z=


Powell River

SP 17/11/2008 18:41->
SPECI CYPW 171841Z 11004KT 1 1/2SM BR BKN003 OVC250 RMK FG2SF6CI0
VIS W 5=
SA 17/11/2008 18:00->
METAR CYPW 171800Z 11006KT 1SM BR OVC002 09/09 A3002 RMK
FG3SF5 VIS W 5 SLP167=

Comox

FT 17/11/2008 17:59->
TAF CYQQ 171759Z 1718/1818 16004KT 2SM BR OVC004
TEMPO 1718/1721 1/4SM FG VV002 FM172100 14010KT P6SM SCT004
BKN030
TEMPO 1721/1806 2SM BR BKN004 FM180600 27004KT P6SM SCT010
BKN030 RMK NXT FCST BY 180000Z=

[Captain 152]

I agree with almost everything said in the post above but just wanted to correct you on one thing. The Goose did have a GPS tracker on board. After the first Goose crash Pasco bought those units and dispatch could track the position of the aircraft online. When it was realized the Goose was missing, they were able to give SAR the coordinates off the GPS unit, which is why the search did not take very long.

[aileron]

... After the first Goose crash Pasco bought those units and dispatch could track the position of the aircraft online...

To further enlighten, Pasco was in the process of implementing a tracking device prior to SL's accident; an absolutely devastating case of ill-fated timing. Had their known position made a difference, in the first crash, it is too soon to say.

RIP PM: You'll be greatly missed.

Opinion-wise, I will NEVER trust a 121.5 ELT; I never heard a ping in either accident. I hope 406MHz works better.

[DA900]

What difference does a high pay scale (by the hour or mileage) make if you've been weathered in for five days and have to make the mortgage?

That has to be the most unscholarly comments I have read in a long time.

[Widow]

That has to be the most unscholarly comments I have read in a long time.

Why? If I'm missing something, I'd like to understand.

[E-Flyer]

Should passengers regard the airline for saving their lives by choosing not to fly? There seems to be this automatic expectation that just because the planes go faster, they should be able to fly everyday. Do you drive 200km/hr when it's foggy and icey? No you don't.

On the other hand, pilot's should all be assimilated in understanding that when it's unsafe you say NO. There should be no fuss around that, losing jobs, not making your dime, nothing. And to enforce this, some operators need to grow up and transport in my opinion should enforce proper management at all companies to ensure "safety" is an automatic given. Pasco is a good company though, I trying to target the shady operators which have these kinds of crashes on regular basis.

That's my take on it.

[Widow]

Should passengers regard the airline for saving their lives by choosing not to fly?

My husband (a pax) had declined to fly when the pilot was willing. He had a hunter's ability to smell the weather. But, like some pilots, if he didn't fly, he often didn't work ... and if he chose not to fly with the chosen company, he had to pay his own way. Sometimes, there is pressure on the working passengers as well.

Which only makes the rest of your comments that much more valid.

[E-Flyer]

Then there should be a system that makes sure that pilot's are protected when making safety related decisions. And this is completely within the reach of TC to establish. But they don't care I guess. Otherwise, how could they put TSB to work? As sad as it is

If you ask me, the operator should pay a big fat bonus to the pilot who knows his shit and is saying no for valid reasons, no?

[Widow]

I understand there are some operators who have taken that initiative. Kudos to them. Must make an already expensive day that much more expensive.

[davidv]

Then there should be a system that makes sure that pilot's are protected when making safety related decisions.

Are pilots included in occupational health and safety legislation in BC? (or any other province for that matter?)

[Widow]

As far as I'm aware, there has been no agreement with any provincial body for this federally regulated workplace.

Pilots are governed by the Canada Labour Code and TCCA OH&S.

Pilots: Stay safe, Know your rights

That being said, it would be interesting to see what happened if a pilot called Worksafe BC to Report Unsafe Work

[CD]

As Widow notes (and linked) aviation is federally regulated so the Canada Labour Code Part II applies. If a Provincial safety officer was contacted, they would likely direct the call to their federal counterpart who has jurisdiction.

Aviation Occupational Health & Safety - Regional Contacts
905-1/Operations Program Directives (OPDs)/Interpretation, Policies and Guidelines (IPGs) - Subject: Response to a Refusal to Work in Case of Danger Canada Labour Code – Part II
Occupational Health and Safety and Compliance

Curiously, I cannot locate a source on the Labour Canada site where one might report an unsafe condition. The only contacts that I can find are the AOH&S contacts above...

[Dex]

I wonder how many pilots would choose not to fly in minimal to sub VFR weather if they didn't have a handheld GPS working in the cockpit.

[E-Flyer]

I wonder how many pilots would choose not to fly in minimal to sub VFR weather if they didn't have a handheld GPS working in the cockpit.

The better question is, how many pilots would choose to fly with the GPS... we have become too reliant on this piece of machinery.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I wonder how many pilots would choose not to fly in minimal to sub VFR weather if they didn't have a handheld GPS working in the cockpit.

Pilots have been skud running forever.

The hand held GPS has made it a lot less likely that they will fly into a shore line.

But you do have a valid point, the idiots will probably be braver idiots with a GPS.

For a pilot who uses good airmanship the GPS is a God send as it gives them a very accurate way to navigate and be better able to see the visibility trend going down.

[Northern Skies]

I wonder how many pilots would choose not to fly in minimal to sub VFR weather if they didn't have a handheld GPS working in the cockpit.

The better question is, how many pilots would choose to fly with the GPS... we have become too reliant on this piece of machinery.

Agreed 100%!

[glorifiedtaxidriver]

What difference does a high pay scale (by the hour or mileage) make if you've been weathered in for five days and have to make the mortgage?

That has to be the most unscholarly comments I have read in a long time.

She's actually a lot closer to the truth than you think. Human factors 101. Sit for five days and watch the bills mount while the paycheque gets smaller and suddenly you're out flying in weather you cancelled flights for on day 1. I've seen it a hundred times. I also can't understand why transport allows companies to pay pilots this way. Lets go with the numbers from my first job on the coast. $80/day plus 25c/mile. 21 days a month is $1680.00 base pay. In a good month I'd fly 10000 miles - thats another $2500.00. Divide that by 21 is roughly $120.00. So after five days of not flying you've lost $600.00. More than half my paycheque always came from mileage. As the years went on my base pay grew, but always more than half my paycheque was mileage. Its an antiquated pay system that should be outlawed by transport. In this day and age of SMS and safety bullitens and CRM and Pilot Decision Making courses I can't believe there are still companies that pay their pilots this way. I actually brought this up with transport at one point and got nowhere. Anyway, thats my rant. Not saying it has anything whatsoever to do with this accident.

[2good2btrue]

We can blame Transport all we want for all the stuff that they aren't doing, but the biggest safety problem in aviation is pilots. If no one flew VFR when the weather was below VFR no one would feel pressure to fly when the weather was below VFR and operators wouldn't expect it. If all pilots snagged airplanes when there were unserviceabilities, no one would hesitate to snag an aircraft and you wouldn't see operators pushing employees to "fly it anyways, thats not important" or "we're waiting for parts, we'll have it fixed in a couple of days" or "we'll get to it soon" etc etc. I've seen companies where the pilots are scared to snag anything in the logbook for fear of the repercussions.

If pilots STUCK TOGETHER and FOLLOWED THE RULES it would benefit everyone (except maybe this forum because there would be a whole lot less to write and gripe about).

[Chuck Ellsworth]

The reason pilots do not follow the rules is because they are not professionals.

Therefore a professional association would solve that problem as long as said association did not get run by misfits and politicians.

[arcticbeaches]

I'm really surprised Spencer Smith issued those statements. While he is correct that there is immense pressure from clients, at the end of the day the company is ultimately responsible for a safe go/no-go decision. When I go to the doctor I trust their expertise. I may ask questions and do some research but at the end of the day their years of experience and training are what matters. If I went to one doctor and they told me something wasn't safe I wouldn't shop around till I found the one odd-ball that said othewise.

I can imagine the public reading this attempt to pass on the blame to the customer and feeling hesitant about flying with Pasco. If I knew an airline was bowing to customer pressures in their decision making I wouldn't be inclined to fly with them.

[L1011]

I'm really surprised Spencer Smith issued those statements. While he is correct that there is immense pressure from clients, at the end of the day the company is ultimately responsible for a safe go/no-go decision. When I go to the doctor I trust their expertise. I may ask questions and do some research but at the end of the day their years of experience and training are what matters. If I went to one doctor and they told me something wasn't safe I wouldn't shop around till I found the one odd-ball that said othewise.

I can imagine the public reading this attempt to pass on the blame to the customer and feeling hesitant about flying with Pasco. If I knew an airline was bowing to customer pressures in their decision making I wouldn't be inclined to fly with them.

I really WOULDN'T be surprised if the Globe and Mail didn't take these comments out of context, and then add "lashes out" to the title of the article and pray that it gets someone's attention...obviously it worked.

Spencer is not that kind of guy, and Pacific Coastal as a whole is not taking part in this blame game.

The part about trusting a doctor's expertise is a good comparison, but at the same time there are a lot of people out there who insist they always know better.

aaaaaaaaaaaand I have nothing more to say.