Twin Otter crash at Muncho Lake, July 2007

[GyvAir]

I understand what's being said there, GYVair.

Hi PdW.. my comment was actually directed at the little back and forth between Muskeg and Redneck over a begging of differences. Seemed to me that there might be two people talking, but not engaged in exactly the same conversation.

I am surprised to see such a protracted and detailed debate over the difference between overweight and overgross on here. Isn't the topic covered fairly well within the first few days of even a PPL ground school?

[pdw]

It was two points of view there, sort of; the one idea you can be heavy (above/beyond/over the ideal weight) when you're still light (below the manufacturer's POH limit), which is only really happening if there's a reduced performance capability then (ie runway too short / not enough power), and the other idea with lots of runway where loading to the max/MTOW isn't overweight until beyond. Then it's overweight/illegal no matter what, even if it could get airborne that way.

Isn't the topic covered fairly well within the first few days of even a PPL ground school?

I don't believe so, actually. Perhaps these days the student gets to fly at M.T.O.W. once in a while, but likely not at the very beginning nor when solo before the flight test. Lots of ground-school talk/ study about it for sure. You can ... if a couple of friends go along for an instruction or two; but isn't that still frowned upon during practices (ie the insurance waivers) ?

There's not always the chance to fly PIC at full gross, as in my case, except maybe the dual cross country with full fuel. The very day I got the license was the very first time as 172-PIC at M.T.O.W. The engine had just been blessed with another 50 hour extension, and WX was hot with July humidity. Myself, I was scrawny enough at the time (weight-wise), so a little lucky there. Chose to launch 24 from the intersection with 4 adults / 2/3-3/4tanks (the heaviest pax placed next to me) with '2400 remaining' in "light and variable". Had used quick math for W&B ... but the Koch-consideration (90F/ 80%) with the smallest of 'tailwind possibility', just 2 ft upslope, and the timed out engine's contribution were not really enough of a concern to me until barely airborne over the old saggy perimeter cow-fence with almost non-existant climb-rate.

Tough to watch a crew of pilots nearing 30,000 hours between them getting snagged in the way it's portrayed in the video and report. Enough small oversights also adding up there as well ? No question the biggest contributor can take the biggest slice of blame, but the pilots would know, and should be well versed in the obvious ones ....wouldn't they ?

[GyvAir]

Tough to watch a crew of pilots nearing 30,000 hours between them getting snagged in the way it's portrayed in the video and report.

Yes, it is a rather sickening clip to watch, for its futility.

[Redneck_pilot86]

Tough to watch a crew of pilots nearing 30,000 hours between them getting snagged in the way it's portrayed in the video and report.

Yes, it is a rather sickening clip to watch, for its futility.

Especially when that lodge has a longer airstrip a few miles away that is normally used for these trips.

[shimmydampner]

Tough to watch a crew of pilots nearing 30,000 hours between them getting snagged in the way it's portrayed in the video and report.

30 000 hours of flying mostly jets and almost zero DHC-6 MPS by the sounds of the report. A grand total of one PIC take off from that strip. It never ceases to amaze me how lightly some people take bush flying. It's as though they figure that because the airplanes aren't complex, the flying is easy. It's not uncommon to hear a pilot with little or no bush experience talk about their grand bush flying plans upon retirement and it always irks me a little. If you think 10 000 hours of airline jet time qualifies you to fly a twin otter off strip you've got your head up your ass.

[Nephilim]

Tragic accident for sure. If you notice closely one of the pilots is on the brakes. Everytime the nose wants to come off (quickly as in a flap 30 takeoff) it settles back to the ground. Would not do that if brakes were not being applied. Also that airplane had a particular habit of the right engine throttle lever would want to creep back (despite max throttle tensioner) to a power less than MTOP. I used to brief the co-pilot every departure to be cognitive of that to make sure to maintain maximum power from that engine. It was snagged several times and signed out as fixed (because could not duplicate on the ground) but still had that creep back throttle. Operating single pilot from that airstrip was tricky for that reason. Once the left hand was off the tiller and onto the yoke the right hand would be back on the throttles making sure full (max allowable) right engine power was demanded/reset. It would not creep back to idle, but enough to definitely degrade takeoff power. For four years I successfully ran that airplane from that airstrip as pilot/cp/ops mnger.

Before I left that position I had amended the COM/SOP to restrict departures from that runway (we had a more suitable runway available 3 miles away) to restrict landing and takeoffs with passengers on board for obvious safety/weight reasons. SOP's also read that brakes had to be held until max TO power was achieved, and that 30 degree flap settings were to be used. I knew I was leaving the company at that time and did not want a more junior pilot getting in trouble on that small airstrip. I advised TC of my reasons for these amendments for safety considerations, as they knew I was leaving the company (promised a better job that turned out to be bullshit to the max). Unfortunately, the next CP only lasted a year and another CP was hired. Someone (not the owner) amended again or deleted the amendments I submitted and took the restrictions out and the rest is history.

My good friend died in that crash that day, it was not right!