AirdogAlpha wrote:
I am sorry that some of you find it offensive that in the search for answers, and effort to make flying safer... that we would discuss this accident in an open and constructive forum. As a person who has lost many friends to flight related accidents I know that if they could speak.... they ALL would want us to learn from their misfortunes. ... Whether or not it is mech or pilot error. The reality is that this accident is now a prime area of discussion at airports around Vancouver... with the weekend approaching there will be many conversations of GA and pro pilots. This is good. Anytime we can get people thinking about WTurb ...and remind them of the dangers it is a good thing... a very good thing
Today, several young students from BCIT stopped by the accident scene where they learned an important lesson about what happens when you are low and slow...and how little time you have to recover if you have a problem ... engine failure, bird strike, or WTurb.
Open debate is about learning...and preventing. If you feel that we should not learn and prevent... and safe lives, then you are not a very good aviator. I would encourage everyone here...to discuss. It could save your life... no matter what the cause of this accident is
Kind regards
Mark Miller
CTV Aviation Analyst .
Yes Mark, that's all true, and all of that discussion will occur, in due course...but it's nice to give those who'll be in shock and hurting at least a few moments before all of that discussion begins.
Sincere condolences to all concerned.
Please just give people a week or something before we start speculating and talking about what happened. These are HUMAN beings! Someones husband, boyfriend, son, father maybe.. who knows.. YVR south is a tight knit community and I'm sure both pilots are well known. I knew one of them from work... Please just give people time to let their emotions settle.
Its great to learn from mistakes or misfortunes.. and I'm sure the deceased and the loved ones would agree.. There is a time and place for it.. neither of which is less than 24 hours after the crash itself.
I'd want the same...
RIP guys
Canpilot as Skywolfe..(i'm too lazy to sign into my account when her account is ALWAYS open)
Sidebar wrote:"Any other suggestion?" ... Yeah. Here's my suggestion. GIVE IT A REST! These poor guys are dead less than 24 hours and you want to point the finger at them already? This is one of the most disgusting things about this site - all the ghouls hanging around wanting to speculate in an almost total absence of facts.
I agree that baseless speculation is useless - HOWEVER, open discussion about the event with the intent to prevent it from happening again should not wait until the grieveing process is over.
Whether or not the accident actually was or wasn't caused by turbulence from the airbus, you can bet that everyone will be paying closer attention to spacing for quite a while, and that is the whole point here.
I respect the work you due and enthusiastically watch, however the loyal members of this group are always more concerned about the loss of fellow friends and innocents than they are about details at this stage. The names of the crew are still unknown (publicly) at this time and the investigation is still in it's infancy. Some are quite concerned that it may be former friends or colleages. Fellow pilots generally use these initial threads for expressing their condolences. The time for airmchair investigating will come later (preferably in a new thread).
The posters here may be anonymous, but they are still people.
Kilo-Kilo
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by Kilo-Kilo on Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I respect the work you due and enthusiastically watch, however the loyal members of this group are always more concerned about the loss of fellow friends and innocents than they are about details at this stage. The names of the crew are still unknown (publicly) at this time and the investigation is still in it's infancy. Some are quite concerned that it may be former friends or colleages. Fellow pilots generally use these initial threads for expressing their condolences. The time for airmchair investigating will come later (preferably in a new thread).
The posters here may be anonimous, but they are still people.
Kilo-Kilo
+1
I am always at a loss of words when I read about these accidents. My thoughts go out to everyone involved. Being able to come to this community is a way to reflect and remember all lost loved ones over the years. There is lots of investigating and opinions that will come out in time but this forum is, for lack of a better word, like a church for me. Where I can sit down and join other Pilots and reflect on the reality of what happened and the life we all invest ourselves into. I appreciate the job that Mark might do but coming to this community and to the thread where we can say our peace is a little too close and personal. I know you don't need to be invited into this community to take part in it, but none the less there is a culture that should be respected.
My heart goes out the Pilots of last night. Rest in peace.
My point was to the larger aviation community....global... national. (I perhaps wasn't thinking of the Sterm community)
The more time between event and discussion... the less likely we are to discuss... certainly my experience.. But I may be wrong...
Apologies to those ...whom may take offense.
The challenge is (and I posted on this before) is that the networks/newspapers want to cover the story...
and they will seek out facts...
-Wturb is part of the investigation
and/or they will fill air with what ever... and often that is information that is inaccurate...and can create fear around what is still a very safe mode of transportation.
A perfect example happened just after 4p today... the classic question was asked at the TSB newser "how old was the airplane" a reporter waas trying to build a story about old, rickety airplanes that are falling from the sky
Kinda irrelevant.... the questioner was told by Bill Ywood, effectively killing the story.... But again, you can see where the uniformed are going to take it.
I take pride in trying to explain flight to people... I hope I generally get it correct. If I don't I know you guys will hold my feet to the fire and educate me...
that is where this forum has wonderful value.
Finally... and most importantly...
It is most certainly a sad day any time we loose a friend or fellow aviator... I saw one family come by the scene today... and my heart sank...
my thoughts turned to young fliers with dreams... hundreds of hours of study... dedication and sacrifice...
AirdogAlpha wrote:I am sorry that some of you find it offensive that in the search for answers, and effort to make flying safer... that we would discuss this accident in an open and constructive forum. As a person who has lost many friends to flight related accidents I know that if they could speak.... they ALL would want us to learn from their misfortunes. ... Whether or not it is mech or pilot error. The reality is that this accident is now a prime area of discussion at airports around Vancouver... with the weekend approaching there will be many conversations of GA and pro pilots. This is good. Anytime we can get people thinking about WTurb ...and remind them of the dangers it is a good thing... a very good thing Today, several young students from BCIT stopped by the accident scene where they learned an important lesson about what happens when you are low and slow...and how little time you have to recover if you have a problem ... engine failure, bird strike, or WTurb.
Open debate is about learning...and preventing. If you feel that we should not learn and prevent... and safe lives, then you are not a very good aviator. I would encourage everyone here...to discuss. It could save your life... no matter what the cause of this accident is
Kind regards
Mark Miller
CTV Aviation Analyst
There is no evidence whatever that this airplane was either low or slow. It could have been high and fast and the result would have been exactly the same if the cause was wake turbulence. So the BCIT students know what a burned out aircraft looks like and that's it.
I'm actually in agreement that accidents should be discussed after they happen as long as due respect is shown to the victims. However, claiming the accident was of the low and slow variety, is actually a criticism of two of our dead brothers that has no factual basis whatsoever.
And, we also don't know that it was wake turbulence.
Sorry for asking, but what the hell were a bunch of students ushered to an accident scene supposed to prove? Learn a lesson?? F**kin morbid way to teach. Should we rush student drivers to car accident scenes where people have died to prove a yet unproveable point? We don't know what happened yet, so what is there to teach?
---------- ADS -----------
Success flourishes only in perseverance -- ceaseless, restless perseverance. -The Red Baron
There has been no official confirmation, but local media reports indicate one of the pilots killed in a fiery plane crash in Richmond, B.C., on Thursday night was Jeremy Sunderland, 28.
Mark Miller, What are your aviation credentials. You say your are an "aviation analyst". What expertise do you have to back up these claims. You put you opinions out there, but what experience do you back them up with.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by The Mole on Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Firstly, heartfelt condolences to the families, friends and coworkers of the two pilots. A terrible loss and a blow to a good operator.
Secondly, "Aviation Analyst" from CTV seems like like a self aggrandizing fool... "low and slow" my ass.
Thirdly, yes it is early to speculate, but it is from speculation and investigation we learn the cause. If the cause is known, the possibility of future accidents can be reduced and risk mitigated.
As soon as I heard some of the descriptions from witnesses I was reminded of the Comox accident of a few years ago.
Seems similar. Fire causing a crash. Possible oil leak onto the turbocharger, causing a fire leading to structural failure.
The guy is doing his job...take it easy. Its human nature wanting to know what happened...thats not disrespectful, and speculation can be educational...the final report is what determines future response, not CTVs analysis.
This among the other accidents out of YVR (2 pasco, 1 Orca, 2 navair, 1 NT, 1 Sonic, 1 General Aviation, now 1 CAC) in the last few years have been TERRIBLY hard for anyone and everyone who works or has worked out of YVR.
We all grieve in our own ways and to understand what 'may' have happened are some peoples way of grieving. Anger is one of them, and that is acceptable to. I am angry.
I do not hold judgement against anyone looking at wake turbulence as a possible cause and advising fellow aviators about it even if it wasn't the cause (a little tasteless to go to the recent scene of a crash like ambulance chasers, but i am sure it will hopefully open some peoples eyes). As anyone knows who fly's out of YVR you will get sandwiched daily between airbuses with sometimes really minimal distances but as a trained professional we all know to stay above the heavier machines wake.. that is not something you EVER mess with in a little navajo. On 2 1/2 mile final you would be hoping that gear would be coming down and your flaps would be down to meet the SOP's for a stable approach. Sometimes we deviate from that to meet the demands of a high density airport, but that is something TSB will determine. YVR is a great airport, and incredibly flexible if you do not want to accept these kind of approaches.
I trust TSB and what the outcomes of this investigation will bring. I am just so tired of losing friends in YVR.. and it's always YVR. Not anywhere else. RIP friends.
V1 Rotate wrote:Firstly, heartfelt condolences to the families, friends and coworkers of the two pilots. A terrible loss and a blow to a good operator.
Secondly, "Aviation Analyst" from CTV seems like like a self aggrandizing fool... "low and slow" my ass.
Thirdly, yes it is early to speculate, but it is from speculation and investigation we learn the cause. If the cause is known, the possibility of future accidents can be reduced and risk mitigated.
As soon as I heard some of the descriptions from witnesses I was reminded of the Comox accident of a few years ago.
Seems similar. Fire causing a crash. Possible oil leak onto the turbocharger, causing a fire leading to structural failure.
My two cents.
Ad Astra
Are we not all low and slow , relativley speaking , while on approach?
We have all seen the media make fools of themselves and their profession while reporting aviation accidents. It makes one wonder how accuratley they report other news events...
I don't know this reporter , but I will say that I have seen him on TV before and he seems to have a better grasp of our business than most.
Mark Miller, I really don't know where to begin. I was blown away reading your post on here. You've lost friends, I've lost friends and that's all we really have in common. Unlike you, I have some respect when it comes to these matters. I don't have an urge to get on here and talk garbage about something I have no idea about. So some students learned a good lesson about what happens when you get low and slow today? That’s a bit of a slap in the face to the boys who aren't here to defend themselves. I'm curious what you know about low and slow? Not a hell of a lot! You’re an aviation analyst or Aviation expert???!! That may be your title, but you certainly are not! I’ve watched your show and watched you have a simulated engine failure and start to flutter down towards the ground with no idea what to do. I’ve heard you on the news talking about Air France saying that weather shouldn’t have brought down an airliner because airliners can fly over storms. I don’t know of any Airbus that has a ceiling of 70,000. That’s what it would take to get over those types of storms around the equator. I’m getting off topic but Mark, get over yourself. You have NO experience what so ever to make any of the comments you do. Sorry Mark but I’m not a fan and your B.S reporting doesn’t belong on this thread right now.
To the families/friends and everyone at CAC, I’m truly sorry for your loss. I’m proud to have known the Capt and I can say without doubt, he was one of the great guys in our old group. You’ll be missed but never forgotten.
I have to agree with "The Mole" in his inquirying into "Marks" qualifications to support the role as an aviation analyst (reading between the lines, expert).
I think speculation without actual, re. proven data, facts can be counter productive to the entire safety process that is accident investigation.
I for one will refrain from uneducated, uninciteful speculation. This coming from a 25 yr. aviation veteran, with over 15000hr.s and 17 jet command type ratings.
That is just my opinion, one pilot one opinion. Over the years, I have learned that the value of that isn't worth the price of a cup of coffee.
Let the process do its job and out of respect to all that are affected by this tragedy, both alive and deceased, keep uneducated, lack of fact based speculation to yourself.
My sincerest sympathies to all affected by this terrible event.
I for one am glad to see a media correspondant with an understanding of the industry. I remember last summer he really managed to keep the discussion levelheaded, refrained from pointing fingers, and did a pretty good job of laying it out for the public. I can recall a few sensational questions that he quickly torpedoed in his interviews. I think we've seen the same thing here. So while asking for someone's credentials is always valid - perhaps if you listened to what he was saying, you'd be less apt to ask.
Learn from this, and see that it doesn't happen again. That's what we do.
Having already said my peace earlier in this thread....
Mark Miller is an accomplished pilot with seat time in a wide variety of aircraft. Hasn't anybody seen his show Airdogs on Discovery Channel? I believe it was Discovery.
Quote: As one of the best aerospace engineering test pilots for NATO, Rooster's flying experience ranges from combat flights in the Gulf War to the most dangerous job in aviation: the lead solo position with the Snowbirds. Known as a renegade pilot who has had several "near misses," Rooster's love of flying propels him to pilot just about any aircraft he can fly. While his partner may have clocked over 10,000 hours in the air, Miller's experience isn't quite as extensive. But this low-hour, recreational, small-craft enthusiast is ready for the chance to pilot test flights and push an airplane to the edge of its specs. Is Miller really ready to grip the controls of his dream aircraft, testing the boundaries of each plane and himself?
With over 10,000hrs of flying under my belt and I don't consider myself an aviation expert
---------- ADS -----------
Most people say I know fuk nothing, but I really know fuk all....
Finn47 wrote:Looking at the approach plates, 700 ft at 2 NM out and roughly 120 knots is NOT low and slow, but right on the money in my opinion...
I don't think he meant low and slow as in lower and slower than they should have been, but low and slow as in on an approach with not much energy relative to cruise, for example.
