Part of the problem with pilots ..-running and bending to perceived customer pressure or self-imposed pressure, IMHO, is that they will get away with flying below VFR 99.9% of the time. We've all done it at one point (or more...), pushing when we knew well we should not. But you're familiar with the route, the terrain, you've done it before, you have another commitment at the other end, you dont want to let people down, and way back in the back of your head - you're a damn great pilot so of course you'll make it. And 99% of the time you do make it and nothing happens. This will never go away I'm afraid.
Can we blame company management here? According to the sentiments from this site on the first Pasco thread, not one bit. This is a great company with great culture the thread said. Can we blame TC on this one? Well according to one ex-TC self-admitted whistleblower quoted in a newspaper article we should, but really, if Pasco was seen in such high regard by all the people here, doesn't that mean that TC was kind of doing its job in working with Pasco and maintaining a good company culture? Perhaps TC should have shut Pasco down after the August fatal accident, no? This 2nd Goose crash would not have happened. So then, who's left? The pilot and the customer. I hate to say it, but in this case, and until we know otherwise, if the company did not put pressure on pilots, then I would be one more who lean toward a pilot error in judgment and decision-making, in that this particular pilot thought he could make it one more time, but got into a fog he had not met before.
Pacific Coastal lashes out - today's Globe and Mail
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog
Re: Pacific Coastal lashes out - today's Globe and Mail
I know I said I had nothing more to say, but....how many times have people made conclusions on accidents way too soon after they happen, and then the investigation proves the cause to be something way out in left field??? For the most part, everyone has collected information regarding both accidents from the media...NOT a good source at all.armchair wrote:I hate to say it, but in this case, and until we know otherwise, if the company did not put pressure on pilots, then I would be one more who lean toward a pilot error in judgment and decision-making, in that this particular pilot thought he could make it one more time, but got into a fog he had not met before.
Re: Pacific Coastal lashes out - today's Globe and Mail
Correct L1011, that was just an opinion. We're all entitled to our opinion on this board.
Speaking of Pasco , here's another good one from CADORS , happened on Nov 11:
CADORS 2008P2092 - TSB A08P0365: The Pacific Coastal Saab 340A aircraft took off from Vancouver for Cranbrook. The aircraft encountered light icing during the climb and could not climb above 13,800 feet. At Princeton the icing became moderate and the aircraft was unable to maintain altitude. The crew decided to divert to Penticton. During the approach at Penticton, severe icing was encountered and the aircraft stall warning sounded several times at 150 knots (it was impossible to hold a higher airspeed). As the aircraft descended, ice began to shed from the boots and props, and the aircraft landed without further event.
Can they lash out at customers on that one?
Speaking of Pasco , here's another good one from CADORS , happened on Nov 11:
CADORS 2008P2092 - TSB A08P0365: The Pacific Coastal Saab 340A aircraft took off from Vancouver for Cranbrook. The aircraft encountered light icing during the climb and could not climb above 13,800 feet. At Princeton the icing became moderate and the aircraft was unable to maintain altitude. The crew decided to divert to Penticton. During the approach at Penticton, severe icing was encountered and the aircraft stall warning sounded several times at 150 knots (it was impossible to hold a higher airspeed). As the aircraft descended, ice began to shed from the boots and props, and the aircraft landed without further event.
Can they lash out at customers on that one?
-
Chuck Ellsworth
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3074
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:49 am
- Location: Always moving
Re: Pacific Coastal lashes out - today's Globe and Mail
Jeses I never thought of that, but if they worked so diligently with Pasco why didn't they work that diligently with Sonic Blue?doesn't that mean that TC was kind of doing its job in working with Pasco and maintaining a good company culture?
Was it favoritism? maybe racism? maybe no Quid pro quo? so many questions so few answers how do we learn what it takes to get TC to work with us?
Jeses once again we have a real credible scenario.....he got into a fog he had not met before.in that this particular pilot thought he could make it one more time, but got into a fog he had not met before.
So how do you train pilots to recognize the fog you never met before?
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
Re: Pacific Coastal lashes out - today's Globe and Mail
When I find fog that I haven't met before or recognize I go up and take a good look. Maybe give the fog a little tickle of prop wash. If that goes well, I ask her to spread her temperature and dewpoint 
OK, now somebody yell dog pile.
OK, now somebody yell dog pile.
Last edited by 805ITT on Fri Nov 28, 2008 4:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Pacific Coastal lashes out - today's Globe and Mail
figure of speech, metaphor, you know... 
Re: Pacific Coastal lashes out - today's Globe and Mail
As Transport themselves pointed out, flying in illegally marginal weather has become an accepted industry practice. I suspect Mr. Danford's point in "blaming" Transport, is more along the lines that despite knowing the practice is common, Transport has done very little to stop those who do it.
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
Re: Pacific Coastal lashes out - today's Globe and Mail
I would be very interested, Widow, in how you purpose they do it.
Other than putting a TC employee on every flight oversight is, in my opinion,impossible
You can impose draconian penalties., but that is all going to come after the fact. Not before.
And I am willing to bet that almost without question, most of the pilots did not take off or continue in marginal weather with the expectation they would end up crashing.
The onus for compliance rests with company management and the PIC. No one else.
It seems from your posts these days, you have answers. Again, I would be interested in a truly practical solution, as I am sure everyone who is interested in safety would. Not hard to ask questions, but sometimes it is hard to come up with real solutions, [particularily when the focus is only on the regulator
Other than putting a TC employee on every flight oversight is, in my opinion,impossible
You can impose draconian penalties., but that is all going to come after the fact. Not before.
And I am willing to bet that almost without question, most of the pilots did not take off or continue in marginal weather with the expectation they would end up crashing.
The onus for compliance rests with company management and the PIC. No one else.
It seems from your posts these days, you have answers. Again, I would be interested in a truly practical solution, as I am sure everyone who is interested in safety would. Not hard to ask questions, but sometimes it is hard to come up with real solutions, [particularily when the focus is only on the regulator
Last edited by trey kule on Fri Nov 28, 2008 4:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
-
Chuck Ellsworth
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3074
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:49 am
- Location: Always moving
Re: Pacific Coastal lashes out - today's Globe and Mail
Widow if enough pilots were really serious about forming an association would you be the CEO for them?
At least they could trust you to get to the heart of problems and I very much doubt you would fit into the good old boys club like so many of these organizations turn out to be.
At least they could trust you to get to the heart of problems and I very much doubt you would fit into the good old boys club like so many of these organizations turn out to be.
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
Re: Pacific Coastal lashes out - today's Globe and Mail
I don't have all (or even any of) the answers treykule, but since it's a recognized problem, I think more should be done to figure it out. Lot's of little things would help, like putting up more webcams, anything to help make better decisions before "testing the waters" or going ..-running. I just don't think Transport cares about the little planes ... it seems to me keeping the owners in business is what is important to them, rather than keeping the public safe. There has to be a happier median. If they would just fulfill TSB rec A01-01, or have the external judicial review as recommended by Moshansky ... we might get a clean slate to start with.trey kule wrote:I would be very interested, Widow, in how you purpose they do it.
I sincerely believe that Mr. Carson's idea for a mandatory professional association for all commercial pilots would be enormously beneficial. Pilots need to know that when they say "no", there is NOT going to be someone else to take their place. I don't think Transport cares about the occupational health and safety of the "bush pilot", and I am convinced this type of association would give a voice to this unrepresented group.
If it were to happen, and I were offered a place . ... hell yes, I'd take it. I already consider myself a "volunteer advocate for the safety of workers transported by air".
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
Re: Pacific Coastal lashes out - today's Globe and Mail
I agree with you trey kule. compliance cannot come from direct surveillance or enforcement, but from within company management. Commercial pilots will always feel pressured to complete the task unless they know for certain that company management will support any decision they make in this regard. Easier to say than accomplish but that's the way it is.trey kule wrote:I would be very interested, ..., in how you purpose they do it.
Other than putting a TC employee on every flight oversight is, in my opinion,impossible
You can impose draconian penalties., but that is all going to come after the fact. Not before.
And I am willing to bet that almost without question, most of the pilots did not take off or continue in marginal weather with the expectation they would end up crashing.
The onus for compliance rests with company management and the PIC. No one else.
Re: Pacific Coastal lashes out - today's Globe and Mail
And what about management being unable to help the pilot make good decisions ... because TC hasn't bothered to find a "fix", or make the "fix" easy, for obvious issues?
Why don't they make it easier to get accurate, up-to-date weather information? As examples from my limited non-experience, things like
*weather stations
*lighthouses (are there any left?)
*webcams
*fm radios (make it easy, not difficult)
*forest service repeaters
... it just seems like a no-brainer to me.
Here's something else I fail to understand. If floatplanes are "flying boats", and are subject to Marine law when on the water (which they are), then why aren't they subject to the marine laws of communication and life-saving/emergency equipment?
Why don't they make it easier to get accurate, up-to-date weather information? As examples from my limited non-experience, things like
*weather stations
*lighthouses (are there any left?)
*webcams
*fm radios (make it easy, not difficult)
*forest service repeaters
... it just seems like a no-brainer to me.
Here's something else I fail to understand. If floatplanes are "flying boats", and are subject to Marine law when on the water (which they are), then why aren't they subject to the marine laws of communication and life-saving/emergency equipment?
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
Re: Pacific Coastal lashes out - today's Globe and Mail
Sometimes, if you know that if you get caught, you'll get one huge fine and/or a license suspension, it might prevent you from doing something stupid... even if you think it's perfectly safe.trey kule wrote:You can impose draconian penalties., but that is all going to come after the fact. Not before.
Ok, the day you'll get a fine, it's after the fact... but if enforcement was existant, after the fact, doesn't explicitly mean after the crash.
--In his wrapup remarks, the FAA chief said, "If you think the safety bar is set too high, then your
standards are set too low."
standards are set too low."
-
Holy Magenta
- Rank 2
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 11:02 am
Re: Pacific Coastal lashes out - today's Globe and Mail
People can try and place blame from now to the end of eternity, but the nature of this industry is such that all parties contribute to the risks and that amount of influence is always in flux. What I'm saying is there are soo many variables in this line of work such that you will never fully "safe-proof" everything.
Anyone who deals with the weather knows that just when you think you have the region figured out, when you know the subtle patterns, something extreme can happen you never saw coming. Or that most wx forecasts are pessimistic due to liability, and chances are it will be okay... but when it isn't, now you are in trouble. Or that depending on the company and the economics, they may or may not be pressuring. Same with the clients, and same with the pilots who are trying to walk the tight rope of experience, common sense, and bravado. Everyone wants to do a good job, everyone wants to suceed, but there is never a concrete limit, and it can change from individual to individual or situationally. Even AMEs, those folks are always impressing me, still make mistakes. Aviation is always affected by limitless variables, its constantly under influences so we have to accept that fact.
Yes think safety, and yes put limits, but never expect that you are fully in control of the situation because thats when your done. Better pilots than I have lost their lives because of events gone wrong, and I've seen the worst pilots walk away from craziness smelling like roses. I can't explain it, or understand it, but I have to respect it and be vigilant. If you don't like it, take a boat, train or automobile, or a horse and buggy! But know that life has inherrant risk and all the mitigation or litigation in the world will not ultimately protect everyone.
I mean no disrespect to the folks in these unfortunate accidents. Condolences to them and their familes, and all who are affected. I am just saying playing the blame game doesn't solve much because when you break it down we are all guilty to some degree, eventually.
Anyone who deals with the weather knows that just when you think you have the region figured out, when you know the subtle patterns, something extreme can happen you never saw coming. Or that most wx forecasts are pessimistic due to liability, and chances are it will be okay... but when it isn't, now you are in trouble. Or that depending on the company and the economics, they may or may not be pressuring. Same with the clients, and same with the pilots who are trying to walk the tight rope of experience, common sense, and bravado. Everyone wants to do a good job, everyone wants to suceed, but there is never a concrete limit, and it can change from individual to individual or situationally. Even AMEs, those folks are always impressing me, still make mistakes. Aviation is always affected by limitless variables, its constantly under influences so we have to accept that fact.
Yes think safety, and yes put limits, but never expect that you are fully in control of the situation because thats when your done. Better pilots than I have lost their lives because of events gone wrong, and I've seen the worst pilots walk away from craziness smelling like roses. I can't explain it, or understand it, but I have to respect it and be vigilant. If you don't like it, take a boat, train or automobile, or a horse and buggy! But know that life has inherrant risk and all the mitigation or litigation in the world will not ultimately protect everyone.
I mean no disrespect to the folks in these unfortunate accidents. Condolences to them and their familes, and all who are affected. I am just saying playing the blame game doesn't solve much because when you break it down we are all guilty to some degree, eventually.
