2007 Fatalities: Not as safe as we think

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog

Widow
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 4592
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 12:57 pm
Location: Vancouver Island

Post by Widow »

A thread of interest on a preventable accident ...

Helicopter accident in Quebec's James Bay
---------- ADS -----------
 
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
snaproll20
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 636
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:50 pm

Post by snaproll20 »

Widow.

Sorry, I did not intend to infer Dave was not aware of the risks, I guess what I meant was, like many other passengers, he had (or had to have) some instinctive trust in the people flying him. Certainly, it is shameful that in view of his egress training, clothing himself properly etc, (i.e. preparing as much as possible, )he did not get the kind of flight following and possible rescue means he deserved.
Looking forward to further info on the engine.....

I agree with Dog and others' points. Again, I find no comfort in comparing the risks of various activities. The statistics are almost meaningless. There are always risks, avoided only by abstinence. In today's society, I cannot avoid taking the risk of driving a vehicle. I don't fly hardly ever, so that risk is removed. We make our choices.
---------- ADS -----------
 
sarg
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 273
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2005 10:44 pm

Post by sarg »

Widow as you like to quote information from WorkSafeBC I thought I would provide a link for those inclined to look at the site. http://www.worksafebc.com/insurance/pre ... efault.asp
WorkSafeBC collects insurance premiums from employers to cover the cost of workplace insurance. As an employer, you are required to pay premiums, just as you would for any other insurance. Premiums are based on the assessable earnings of your workers. The premiums we collect from you pay the costs associated with work-related injuries and diseases, including health care, wage loss, rehabilitation, and administration.
In case anyone is still in the dark, this is government mandated insurance that everyone must have unless you meet the requirements to self insure like Air Canada, CN rail, The BC government and others, ( see pg 61 of http://www.worksafebc.com/publications/ ... ts2005.pdf
) for a more complete list of self insuring employers. Like all insurance companies they spend a great deal of time and money assessing risk so they can collect enough money to cover the anticapated costs.

Again from the WorkSafeBC website:
WorkSafeBC announces 2008 base rates
The 2008 figures reflect an average published base rate of $1.56 per $100 of employers’ assessable payroll, 7.5 percent less than the 2007 rate of $1.69.

The average published base rate is a composite of rates in 68 individual rate groups. During 2008, approximately 73 percent of B.C. employers will see base rates decline, 11 percent will see rates stay the same, while 16 percent will experience base rate increases.
Sector: Primary Resources


Subsector: Forestry
CU name CU # 2008 Rate 2007 Rate
Brushing and Weeding or Tree Thinning or Spacing (not elsewhere specified) 703002 $6.33 $7.38
Cable or Hi-Lead Logging 703003 $8.93 $9.46
Chemical Brushing and Weeding or Chemical Tree Thinning or Spacing 703001 $6.33 $7.38
Dry Land Sort 703004 $8.92 $9.48
Forest Fire Fighting 703005 $6.33 $7.38
Ground Skidding, Horse Logging, or Log Loading 703006 $8.93 $9.46
Helicopter Logging 703019 $8.75 $9.39
Integrated Forest Management 703008 $8.93 $9.46
Log Booming 703009 $8.92 $9.48
Log Processing 703011 $8.93 $9.46
Logging Road Construction or Maintenance 703012 $8.92 $9.48
Manual Tree Falling and Bucking 703013 $8.93 $9.46
Marine Log Salvage 703018 $8.92 $9.48
Mechanized Tree Falling 703014 $8.93 $9.46
Shake Block Cutting 703015 $8.92 $9.48
Tree Planting or Cone Picking 703016 $2.42 $2.75

Sector: Transportation and Warehousing


Subsector: Transportation and Related Services
CU name CU # 2008 Rate 2007 Rate
Aircraft Fueling 732002 $3.94 $4.81
Aircraft Handling 732003 $3.94 $4.81
Airport 732004 $0.96 $1.00
Armoured Car Service 732005 $1.60 $1.74
Auto Towing 732006 $4.34 $4.37
Aviation or Flying School 732007 $2.64 $2.89
Barge, Tug, or Other Water Transport of Goods (not elsewhere specified) 732008 $4.06 $5.08
Bus Line, Chartered Bus Tours, or HandyDART Services 732009 $1.82 $1.62
Courier Services 732011 $2.64 $2.88
Distribution Centre 732012 $3.32 $4.15
Dump Truck Operation 732013 $2.65 $2.90
Ferry Service 732014 $1.75 $1.46
Fixed Wing Aerial Work or Other Specialty Air Operations (not elsewhere specified) 732015 $2.64 $2.90
Fixed Wing Instrument Flight Rule Operation 732017 $0.95 $0.98
Fixed Wing Visual Flight Rule Operation 732016 $2.64 $2.89
Fuel Storage Tank Operation and Fuel Distribution 732045 $2.92 $2.43
Garbage, Debris, Industrial Waste, or Recyclable Material Removal 732018 $6.16 $6.98
General Trucking (not elsewhere specified) 732019 $4.87 $6.05
General Wharf Operations 732020 $1.84 $2.69
Harbour Commission or Port Authority 732040 $0.96 $1.00
Helicopter Aerial Work (not elsewhere specified) 732042 $2.64 $2.90
Helicopter Instrument Flight Rule Operation 732041 $0.95 $0.98
Helicopter Visual Flight Rule Operation 732021 $2.65 $2.89
Limousine or Chauffeur Services 732022 $2.64 $2.88
Loading or Unloading Goods (not elsewhere specified) 732023 $1.84 $2.69
Log Hauling 732044 $6.14 $5.15
Log Towing 732024 $4.10 $5.12
Marine Bulk Terminal 732025 $1.84 $2.69
Marine Container Terminal 732026 $1.84 $2.69
Marine Piloting 732027 $1.02 $1.00
Mobile Home or Boat Towing 732029 $4.34 $4.37
Moving and Storage 732030 $4.87 $6.05
Newspaper, Magazine, or Flyer Distribution or Contract Mail Delivery 732031 $2.64 $2.88
Pilot Car or Auto Delivery Services 732032 $2.64 $2.88
Railway 732033 $1.82 $1.62
Ship Docking 732034 $3.96 $4.98
Stevedoring 732036 $1.84 $2.69
Taxi Service 732037 $3.50 $4.37
Water Taxi or Crew Transport 732038 $1.75 $1.46
The rates have been stable or decreasing for a number of years because of a similar trend in claim rates, and I believe some good investment returns for the 2007 rate year. Widow by your own source your earlier contention that the risk of your husband was not doubled when flying into camp.
They don't have to read it.

And IMHO, my husbands chances of dying on the job were doubled when he was being flown in or out of camp.
With the expection of heli logging the highest at risk of the aviation sector (flying) not ground services, is VFR heli operations VFR fixed wing (read 703 ops) is very close. These are only slightly more expensive to get coverage for than the safest in the forest industry, tree planters. These rates are massively cheaper than the next closest forest industry rate. As no surprise to most the risk rate in IFR operations both heli and fixed wing is about 1/3 that of VFR.

For those that care the risk rate for VFR ops (Air Taxi) is the same as Limousine or Chauffeur Services (ground taxi).

Widow wrote
:
So, sorry you don't like what I'm saying. But it is the truth, and I'm not going away.
Someone currently working at the TSB told me he got into it because he had lost 55 (pilot) friends over a period of ten or 11 years. All in seperate accidents.
That's the crux of it, is not widow it not the truth, but just the selected truth that supports your postion.

By way of contrast I've been a commercial pilot for 19 years and lost Zero friends or co-worker to a fatal accident, although 1 was involved in an accident that result in a fatality. I'm sure that most of the industry experienced posters on this forum will come somewhere between these two extermes.

I'm not asking that you "go away" , but don't expect that all of us here are blindly going believe your "truth". The more you selectively post the "truth" the more your credibility can suffer.

I like everyone on the site will agree that we can and should try to do better. I would like Transport to have the manpower and budget to enforce the regulations on the book.

The unvarnished truth is that aviation like pretty much all aspects of life is never going to have a zero preventable accident rate. It's a goal we should strive for, but one that realistically will never be obtained.
---------- ADS -----------
 
xsbank
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5655
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: "The Coast"

Post by xsbank »

I'm trying to count on my fingers and toes... I can think of 14 I've known that thundered in, in 34 years; 6 that walked away.
---------- ADS -----------
 
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
Widow
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 4592
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 12:57 pm
Location: Vancouver Island

Post by Widow »

Boy, that's a lot of info for a mute point.
sarg wrote:Widow by your own source your earlier contention that the risk of your husband was not doubled when flying into camp.
They don't have to read it.

And IMHO, my husbands chances of dying on the job were doubled when he was being flown in or out of camp.
You are trying to use assessable earning statistics to show the risk to life and limb? I'm confused. All you've proven is that the dollar value (to WorksafeBC) of insuring Dave's life (Quality Control - would that be integrated management?) was higher than the dollar value of insuring Arnie's life ... which only means that they pay a hell of a lot less for a dead pilot than a dead logger. Because they earn A LOT less. Because they work A LOT less hours. Can you research the cost to get life insurance for a Quality Control logger as opposed to a VFR float pilot? That might show a slightly different picture.

Dave's risk of being killed in a work-related accident, did more than double in that a/c, according to the statistics. You have not refuted that.
sarg wrote:For those that care the risk rate for VFR ops (Air Taxi) is the same as Limousine or Chauffeur Services (ground taxi).
Um, that would seem to support the "idea" that you are NOT safer flying than you are driving ... although, again, you are talking the cost of insurance based on employment renumeration.

I'm not quite sure what "truth" I am proliferating that you object to. That workplace safety is important? That Transport Canada/Transportation Safety Board has become ineffective in promptly/effectively correcting all critical safety hazards? That our "safe" airline record DOES NOT mean that we have one of the "safest aviation systems in the world"?
sarg wrote:I like everyone on the site will agree that we can and should try to do better. I would like Transport to have the manpower and budget to enforce the regulations on the book.
Isn't this what I'm saying, if in different words? Same goes for the TSB, and the Minister of Labour's oversight of the industry.

But from what I have seen, this industry (although very tight-knit in some ways) is too disjointed to pull it together without "help".

TC is trying to shove SMS down everyones throat, without taking a critical look at how it will affect the already "difficult" OH&S in the industry.

You guys and gals in aviation are responsible for the lives of others, in a way few other industries are. I think that means that your lives must be viewed as doubly important.

I want help in proving this to the officials. That help has been slowly finding its' way to me since I joined AvCanada (thanks everyone!).

I think (actually I'm sure) that, although some will continue to object, by raising these topics for discussion (whether you agree or disagree) it gives you (here at AvCanada) the opportunity to think, question, research, etc., for yourselves. The private support I receive proves I am helping to keep people safer.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
Dog
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:41 am
Location: next to the fire.
Contact:

Post by Dog »

sarg wrote: With the expection of heli logging the highest at risk of the aviation sector (flying) not ground services, is VFR heli operations VFR fixed wing (read 703 ops) is very close. These are only slightly more expensive to get coverage for than the safest in the forest industry, tree planters. These rates are massively cheaper than the next closest forest industry rate. As no surprise to most the risk rate in IFR operations both heli and fixed wing is about 1/3 that of VFR.
For those that care the risk rate for VFR ops (Air Taxi) is the same as Limousine or Chauffeur Services (ground taxi).

You're missing a vital understanding in your argument: Logging injures a lot more people per man hours worked than flying. When there is an aircraft accident the people usually die. The reason for the higher insurance cost is because of the high number of total claims, not exclusively the death claims. Compare the deaths per man/hours worked and you will see that widow is, in fact, quite correct: Dave was twice as likely to die in a float plane as he was during logging operations.


By way of contrast I've been a commercial pilot for 19 years and lost Zero friends or co-worker to a fatal accident, although 1 was involved in an accident that result in a fatality. I'm sure that most of the industry experienced posters on this forum will come somewhere between these two extermes.
What segment of aviation are you involved with (just out of curiosity)?
---------- ADS -----------
 
justplanecrazy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 815
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:57 pm

Post by justplanecrazy »

Dog wrote:
justplanecrazy wrote:

Widow in the past 10 years 3% of the fallers in BC have died. That means in an average 30 year career, 1 in every 11 of your coworkers will die on the job plus numerous more will be seriously injured. No matter what sort of screwed up media stat you dig up, you won't find anything in the aviation industry that compares to that!!! I have relatives and friends working on both sides and trust me when I say the aviation is not unsafe in comparison.
Ok, what if you only compare small courier aircraft pilots vs fellers? You're comparing fellers instead of the logging industry. If you remember Navair? They had four fatalities only a couple months apart. How many pilots where flying freight for a living in BC, (excluding airline ops) 50? that would make it 8%. See what I mean. You can't compare only fellers unless you're ready to allow someone to compare a smaller segment of flying as well.
Dog, you can't use a group of 50 people over one year to get a statistically reliable number as the subject pool is way too small and over way to short of a period. There are 2000 fallers and their fatility rate was based over 10 years.

The reason I chose fallers is because it is a stand alone proffession and unlike logging in general, it is the most dangerous job in Canada. Falling trees is a stand alone occupation just like a pilot is a stand alone occupation to the aviation industry. If you wanted to compare the two industries overall, then you'd have to group in the baggage handlers, the ticket agents, the fuelers, the FBO employees, the runway maitenance etc. just like the logging industry includes the supervisors, the skidder operators, the buckers, the bulldoze operators, the logging truck drivers, the engineers, etc. It's not the guys falling trees with Stihl chainsaws its an entire occupation not including those outside, just like the pilots and not those outside.

If the 2,000 float plane pilots in BC had a 3% fatality rate over 10 years, then we'd know we have a problem with that type of operation in that area. On the other hand, If you have a group of 10 Islander pilots and in one year one of them died, leaving you with a 10% fatality rate, it really doesn't tell us anything.

Bottom line, there are far more dangerous jobs out there than flying and as you pointed out, if you include the seriously injured in the stats, fallers would be off the charts in comparison as most aviation accidents result in death whereas most falling accidents result in injury yet they still have a 3% fatility rate.

Snaproll20, I just find it interesting in how the two communities react differently to a death. Sure in aviation death is often unexpected especially on the part of the friends and families of the passenger but I guess I'm just sick of the mentality that there always has to be something to blame and death can't just be accepted as an unavoidable thing. I mean the country is even screaming when one of our military ends up dead on a battle field, asking how did we let this happen. I think Canada needs to open their eyes and just realize that not everyone can be protected, especially in inherently dangerous activities such as aviation.

You hit the nail on the head,
I agree with someone's comment that we may never entirely remove fatalities, especially in 703. But, this has been a bad year. We can expect worse ahead because of the decline in experience being put in the pilot seats of airplanes right now.
This is something we can't help!!! If their was an obvious downfall in the industry that we could point to, then we'd do that, but I don't know what that thing would be.

I've known 2 pilots that have died flying commercially, one is listed on this thread, and I can't find a way to be able to go back and prevent their deaths other then to have kept them on the ground. Mechanics fail especially in cheap aircraft, even well maintained ones and when they do, it often proves to be fatal. People make mistakes, especially inexperienced ones and when they do, it can prove to be fatal. I don't know why we need to make it any more complicated than that. If there's an answer to saving everyone I'd love to hear it.
---------- ADS -----------
 
We have no effective screening methods to make sure pilots are sane.
— Dr. Herbert Haynes, Federal Aviation Authority.
Widow
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 4592
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 12:57 pm
Location: Vancouver Island

Post by Widow »

The comparison between fallers and pilots is invalidated by the fact that when a faller gets killed on the job, he usually dies alone. When a pilot dies on the job, he usually takes someone with him - and that person (often a worker) is also either injured or killed.

This is why the pilots' OH&S is so important.

No one has said that all accidents are preventable. Only that not enough of them that are preventable, have been prevented. And more will be buried by SMS if the existing problems aren't fixed first.

Oh, and by the way ... I understand this industry quite well for an outsider. Just ask around.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
justplanecrazy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 815
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:57 pm

Post by justplanecrazy »

You're right, pilots carrying live loads have to be held to a higher level of safety than a faller risking only his own life and they are. I just thought i'd point out that there are occupations out there that are far more dangerous than flying, as your article seemed to suggest that aviation was the most dangerous job out there. Aviation is definately not the most dangerous job out there and even the most dangerous areas of aviaiton that don't involve passengers like SAR or waterbombing, have no where near the 9% fatality rate that fallers have over a 30 year career.

I wish it was possible to make a big change to the reality of the industry but i don't think it is. You say there are numerous preventable accidents and imply that any mechanical failure is preventable. The article regarding the James Bay helicopter having a wrong part installed, isn't neccessarily preventable. Unless he intentionally put the wrong part on the aircraft, it was human error and the accident isn't 100% preventable.

Sure AME duty times might lesson the amount of mistakes made but who's to say the mechanic wouldn't have installed the same part if he came in fully rested. Duty time may actually increase the amount of mistakes as one can easily work a 70+ hour work week as a mechanic and not be mentally fatigued. On the other hand, if you have to get a job done and your duty day is coming to an end in the next 30min's, you are a lot more likely to make a mistake rushing the job then someone who works another 4 hours that day, at his own pace.

It's good to see someone fighting to make the industry safer and I do appreciate it but you have to try and keep your emotions from clouding your vision. To flame the TSB for your accident investigation isn't fair. They determined that the cost benefit of recovering the aircraft to determine if there was a mechanical issue, was not in our best interest. There's no conspiracy, just a limited amount of funds to go around and no wide spread benefit in sight. To spend the large amount of money to recover an aircraft doesn't make sense unless there's a good possibility of preventing a future accident because of the recovery. (just curious did the recovery answer any more questions?) Bottom line, the pilot chose to fly in less then ideal conditions and whether he had a mechanical problem or it was controlled flight into glassy water, the weather, that he chose to fly in, prevented him from having any sort of reaction time. The only known fact was the weather conditions and that the pilot chose to fly in them and a conclusion of pilot error is definately correct.
---------- ADS -----------
 
We have no effective screening methods to make sure pilots are sane.
— Dr. Herbert Haynes, Federal Aviation Authority.
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Post by Cat Driver »

Aviation is definately not the most dangerous job out there and even the most dangerous areas of aviaiton that don't involve passengers like SAR or waterbombing,



I can't comment directly on SAR, but from many thousands of hours doing both I can state that waterbombing is far easier and far safer than flying float planes on the west coast.
The only known fact was the weather conditions and that the pilot chose to fly in them and a conclusion of pilot error is definately correct.
That is your opinion, using the word definitely in this case is a stretch......

What are the legal limits visibility and ceiling wise for flying float planes in Canada today?
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
justplanecrazy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 815
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:57 pm

Post by justplanecrazy »

Really? I've flown floatplanes on the westcoast but never done any bombing. I always thought flying those heavy aircraft into moutainous terrain with high winds and poor vis, would be less forgiving then flying a relatively light floatplane. You would definately know.

Unless things have changed, legal limits are 1sm flight visibility and 0' on the ceiling. You can fly legally over glassy water with clouds 20' above and 1sm vis. Is it safe or smart? No. Would I expect to be blamed if I crashed, whether due to an engine failure or going IMC or controlled flight into terrain? Yes, in all cases.
Weather: Lined area over the water was a solid overcast of approximately 500 - 600 feet altitude with variable ceilings underneath from 100 - 200 ft. with varying visibility of 2-4 miles. This is a weather observance by a pilot flying in the area that morning with additional statements from witnesses. Area over the land was clear.
Correct me if those weren't the conditions at the time, as I only know what I hear through the gossip mill. If it is true, then yes the pilot is to blame. Sure other people were flying, legally too, but you as a pilot have to make that choice, and to be anywhere between 100-600' above glassy water with poor vis, for any extended period, you are choosing to put your passengers at a very heightened risk. Just because the rest of the people flying that day got away with it, doesn't mean that the conditions were good. And no I don't think there should be higher VFR minimums, if that's what you're getting at, it is up to the PIC to determine what is safe for their specific flight and take responsibility for that choice. Having an engine fail in a float plane over water, excluding huge swells, should not result in certain death.
---------- ADS -----------
 
We have no effective screening methods to make sure pilots are sane.
— Dr. Herbert Haynes, Federal Aviation Authority.
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Post by Cat Driver »

and to be anywhere between 100-600' above glassy water with poor vis, for any extended period, you are choosing to put your passengers at a very heightened risk.
Therefore we have in place weather minimums that allows commercial float plane operations on the west coast that is putting the public at undue risk.

100 to 600 foot ceilings and two miles vis is good weather considering some of the ceiling and visibilities that are common on the west coast....why I bet you can even find float planes flying in far lower weather minimums than you think pilots should fly in right inside the Vancouver control zone...lots of them.

As to my comparison between water bombing and float plane flying I stand by my comment....having done both extensively.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
justplanecrazy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 815
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:57 pm

Post by justplanecrazy »

Cat if the conditions were the same and the water not glassy then this flight could have been perfectly safe. To pass the buck saying its not ilegal so it's not the PIC's fault, is bull. We as PIC's know what is safe and what isn't. If its a local area and we've only got freight on board with stable weather, we may fly at the legal limit. On the other hand, starting through the pass with anything less then 1000' ceilings, or flying through the rocks with no cloud and high winds, is just as dangerous. Should we than make it illegal to fly VFR with anything less than 1000' ceilings, 5sm and 15kt winds?? That way the VFR weather limits won't allow commercial operators at the coast or in the rocks to put the public at undue risk. Thankfully, it is the PIC's responsibility to determine what is safe and what isn't. If you want that regulated by TC as well, then I'm at a loss for words.
---------- ADS -----------
 
We have no effective screening methods to make sure pilots are sane.
— Dr. Herbert Haynes, Federal Aviation Authority.
Widow
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 4592
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 12:57 pm
Location: Vancouver Island

Post by Widow »

I find this so frustrating. In the AQW accident, the pilot was not flying over the water for an extended period. Not until AFTER witnesses heard it sounding "sick". When it started sounding "sick" he had not gained much altitude yet. He had a choice of crashing into the rising terrain in front of him or turn back to the channel and hope to land "safely" - which he did. The forced landing did NOT result in certain death, rather I remind you that Dave was uninjured (but drowned several HOURS later after suffering extensively from hypothermia - despite his floater coat) - and since no one else has been recovered, we do not know the extent of their injuries or cause of death - but everyone escaped. The occupants did not die during the crash. Had someone at MJM been doing their JOB, it is possible that everyone would have survived ... and certainly my husband would have.

The TSB never interviewed ANY of the witnesses who claimed to have heard the aircraft sounding "sick". After the families paid to recover the aircraft, TSB did NOT take the wreck and do any tests, but made a few slight changes to their letter to the coroner, and left it at that. Their letter to the coroner did not even report on the FACT that MJM Air was NOT flight following, or the FACT that they did not adhere to their own Ops Manual Emergency Checklist after they KNEW the aircraft was missing. This lack of operational control is what killed my husband, and TCCA have condoned this inaction.

I do not, nor will I ever accept this. There are many known FACTS other than the weather that day, or that the pilot (like every other pilot here in the area) "chose" to fly in that weather.

With regard to this accident, the TSB did NOT do a good job - and neither did TCCA.

We know that the engine was within minutes of the end of it's 1600 hour approved life cycle, that there were a large number of "administrative discrepancies" with the Maintenance Logs, and that TCCA's audit of MJM Air shortly before the accident identified problems with the Defect Deferral System. Now that the families have been successful in recovering the engine, we await the engineering reports from TSB. With several high profile (someone can litigate) aviation accidents in the Pacific Region in the last month, I expect the wait may be long.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
justplanecrazy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 815
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:57 pm

Post by justplanecrazy »

I find it frustrating also. You don't seem to believe that the pilot should take the majority of the blame. So he was planning on flying over land with cloud between 100-600' and 2-4sm vis and you don't feel that was the main reason for the accident? He didn't land safely, he crashed and although we don't know exactly why, any pilot will tell you that if you lose an engine with no altitude and glassy water or rocks, you don't have much of a chance. The pilot knew this when he chose to depart. It may not have been certain death but the chances of making a routine landing were basically nil. You wouldn't have time to recover from a hickup let alone an engine failure at that altitude. He chose to fly at that altitude.

I don't know why you're so intent on blaming MJM for not making phone calls, yet you continually defend the pilot. Even if they had called and not received a response it most likely would have taken over an hour to imobilize a rescue effort, I know I worked SAR. The flight following isn't a factor in the accident it's only a factor in the rescue. TSB doesn't report on the shortcomings of accident response, only on the causes of the accident. MJM's flight following is above and beyond most operators operations and not required. Having this in place at all says the company is head and shoulders above the rest, not to mention the egress training etc. What should TC do, fine them for having an extra safety procedure in place?

What would have made the TSB's investigation a good one? I'd rather see my dollars go to more beneficial investigations than the huge costs recovering this aircraft. I don't think interviewing witnesses that said they heard the aircraft sounding "sick" would accomplish anything other than an acknowledgment that there was a possibility of mechanical problems or that the pilot did something or didn't do something to cause the engine to not run properly. If there was an obvious fraud in the aircraft maitenance, then that should have been addressed during the audit, not the accident investigation. Once again the only known substantial fact at this point was that the weather was crap and the pilot chose to fly. If TSB discovers the engine to have failed then there will be two main causes to the accident, the most important being that the weather was crap and the pilot chose to fly.

You say TSB wouldn't touch the engine after you recovered it but then you say you are awaiting engineering reports from TSB??

Anyways, I don't want to argue with you I just think you've let your emotion cloud your judgments and I don't think a lot of your statements are fair to those that work to save our lives.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by justplanecrazy on Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
We have no effective screening methods to make sure pilots are sane.
— Dr. Herbert Haynes, Federal Aviation Authority.
carholme
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 6:29 am

Post by carholme »

justplanecrazy;

Can you tell me what you meant by your assertion that MJMs flight following was above and beyond that of most operators? How do you know that? Was the aircraft reported overdue within the requirements of their operations manual?


carholme
---------- ADS -----------
 
justplanecrazy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 815
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:57 pm

Post by justplanecrazy »

I haven't heard of any other company that pays for a sat phone with 30 min. check up calls.
---------- ADS -----------
 
We have no effective screening methods to make sure pilots are sane.
— Dr. Herbert Haynes, Federal Aviation Authority.
carholme
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 6:29 am

Post by carholme »

justplanecrazy;


That still does not answer the question.

carholme
---------- ADS -----------
 
Widow
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 4592
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 12:57 pm
Location: Vancouver Island

Post by Widow »

justplanecrazy, if you want to argue with me about the AQW accident, then you need to get your facts straight first.
Weather: Lined area over the water was a solid overcast of approximately 500 - 600 feet altitude with variable ceilings underneath from 100 - 200 ft. with varying visibility of 2-4 miles. This is a weather observance by a pilot flying in the area that morning with additional statements from witnesses. Area over the land was clear.
The area over land was clear of weather. The clouds were over the water. He was barely five minutes from departure (including taxi time) and did not "chose" to fly at that altitude - if I'm not mistaken, it takes a little time to get an aircraft up high. The pilot was not flying over the water until AFTER the engine began to sound "sick". The weather may have contributed to the extent of the damage/injuries ... but it was NOT the reason for making contact with the water. There is too much evidence to indicate they knew they were going down.

And MJM did call his CELL PHONE (they did not have a dispatch radio) after they learned it did not arrive at the second destination - an hour after departure. They did not get a response, and waited an additional three hours before contacting SAR - the Emerg checklist says ONE hour after establishing an aircraft as missing. The CP went on another trip during this time, ostensibly to do a "small scale search", yet sat at the dock waiting for his passengers to get out of the shower in the camp, and not returning for several hours himself. And TSB DOES report on issues regarding accident response ... see this report http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/200 ... 5q0157.asp and this safety letter
Transportation Safety Board of Canada

03 March 2006

Mr.Merlin Preuss
Director General, Civil Aviation
Transport Canada


Subject: AVIATION SAFETY SAFETY INFORMATION LETTER A060004-1 (A05Q0157)
Ineffective Means of Flight FolloWing Communication


Dear Mr. Preuss,

On 01 September 2005, a NordPlus float-equipped De Havilland DHC-2 Beaver, registration CFODG, serial number 205, departed the outfitter camp for Squaw Lake, Quebec, 127 nm southeast. Weather deteriorated en route and a precautionary landing was made on Lake Elross, 14 nm northwest of Squaw Lake. Although radio communication via HF radio had been reported to be very poor that day, the pilot did manage to communicate with company dispatch later that afternoon to say that there was a break in the weather and he would takeoff for Squaw Lake. Rescue efforts were initiated in the evening when the aircraft did not arrive at the base.

The aircraft was located the followingday, 11 nm from Squaw Lake. The aircraft was destroyed by a post-impact fire. The pilot, the sole occupant on board, sustained fatal injuries. The Transportation Safety Board investigation into this occurrence (A05QOI57) is ongoing.

NordPlus 1988 Ltd operates under 702/703 Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs). The occurrence flight was operated under 703 CARs. Standard 723.16 requires a Type D operational control system whereby the flight's progress is monitored and the notification of appropriate air operator and search-and-rescue authorities can be accomplished if the flight is overdue or missing. Current information on the location of the air operator's aeroplanes shall be maintained and each aeroplane shall be equipped with serviceable and functioning communications equipment that permits the pilot-in-command to communicate With a ground radio station for the purpose or flight following .


The Transportation Safety Board investigation into this occurrence revealed that although the aircraft was equipped 'With serviceable and functioning communications equipment (in this case 'With a HF and a VrlF radio); neither means of communication was effective that day. The
operator reported that HF radio communication was reported to be very poor during the day and vHF radio coverage at low altitude was insufficient for the relaying of information. The pilot-in-command was therefore unable to communicate the flight's progress for most of the trip
and the operator was unable to follow the aircraft's progress.

Rescue and survivability are dependent on fast and effective communication. In this accident, considering the limited communications capability at the time, it was fortuitous that the pilot was able to notify the company of his intent to depart from Lake Elross. Othervvise the search
efforts would have had to cover a much larger area. This would certainly have delayed finding the aircraft and :increased the resources required in the search. Sadly the pilot of this aircraft was fatally injured in the accident. In other circumstances, had the pilot had been seriously
injured or had he been responsible for seriously injured passengers, the lack of reliable communications would have delayed the finding of the aircraft and the provision of medical care.


Modern technology has provided other means for more reliable communications, especially in remote areas. A search of the Transportation Safety Board occurrence data base, between the
years 2000 and 2005, revealed 21 occurrences, involving 46 occupants, where satellite phone played a key role in the quick rescue and survival of the aircraft occupants.

The foregoing is provided for whatever follow-up action is deemed appropriate.

Nick Stoss

Director of Air Investigations

Transportation Safety Board of Canada

cc: J. Taylor, Director, Aerodromes and Air Navigation, Transport Canada
Of course, that is almost exactly what I said in my report of March of last year (and over and over again in communications with both the TSB and TCCA). Perhaps since Mr. Preuss does not consider the fact that the "lack of reliable communications would have delayed the finding of the aircraft and the provision of medical care" is exactly what happened in our case, and that maybe, just maybe, somebody ought to try to figure out a better way.

BTW, this aircraft burned and could not be analyzed to determine what precipitated the crash.

And what does this mean? "MJM's flight following is above and beyond most operators operations. Having this in place at all says the company is head and shoulders above the rest, not to mention the egress training etc. What should TC do, fine them for having an extra safety procedure in place?"

They were NOT flight following, that is the point. They were not operating above and beyond ... they didn't even have a dispatch radio - until they hired someone AFTER this accident. Where did you hear that they were doing 30 minute check-ins by SAT? This is simply NOT TRUE. If it was, they would have been aware the a/c was missing even sooner. MJM didn't train anyone in egress, Interfor paid for my husband A LOGGER to be trained. Oh, and after they had to start taking operational control, they went out of business - BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T AFFORD IT.

And lastly, I didn't say TSB wouldn't touch the engine after we recovered it, I said THEY DIDN'T TAKE THE WRECKAGE. The fuselage was recovered in July 2005 (and they did NOT report accurately on the evidence it provided), the engine in September 2007 (parts now with TSB).
---------- ADS -----------
 
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Post by Cat Driver »

I'm trying to understand your reasoning justplanecrazy, maybe I'm a little dense but reading your reasons for stating that this accident was pilot error because he chose to fly in weather that every other pilot in that area was flying in is giving me problems understanding your thought process and his choosing to fly over glassy water with the weather as it was.....you say that is taking an unacceptable risk because if the engine fails you will crash...

...therefore no single engine airplanes on floats should take off from the water and climb over tall trees and rock cliffs because if the engine fails you will crash......

am I getting this wrong?
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
justplanecrazy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 815
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:57 pm

Post by justplanecrazy »

I misread the scenario. It was my understanding that he was operating for long distances in the muck, not just departing from it.

The whole scenario is all jumbled, so tell me what I have wrong. He departed and in roughly 45 sec's would be at the bottom of the ceiling, the engine then started sounding rough so instead of flying over the land he stayed low level over the water. He then crashed less than 5 minutes after departing including taxi time? So he basically taxied for 3 minutes, climbed for 45 seconds and shortly after leveling off under the ceiling, he lost the engine and crashed within a few miles from departure? Or he departed climbed out over the land under clear sky, then had a rough running engine and instead of returning to base or doing a precautionairy decided to continue flying over the water under the muck until the engine quit?

I stand corrected on the communications requirement. I thought I read somewhere they were using sat phones and didn't think you were referring to the basic plane to base radio requirement.
---------- ADS -----------
 
We have no effective screening methods to make sure pilots are sane.
— Dr. Herbert Haynes, Federal Aviation Authority.
xsbank
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5655
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: "The Coast"

Post by xsbank »

You have it correct, Cat. I don't understand the logic of his argument either. I guess floatplanes must stay over water at all times and never fly over glassy water.

Glassy water is not any more dangerous than any other condition, you respond to the water conditions as appropriate and you stay close to visual references, ripples, logs or a shoreline. An engine failure over glassy water is a bad one; an engine failure in West Coast SE swells is a bad one; an engine failure over land is a bad one; an engine failure in Seymour Narrows or Beazley Passage or Johnstone Straits or Hecate Straits could be a bad one... should we stop flying altogether?

The weather was legal and certainly flyable. The pilot was forced to land for some reason and whether or not he pooched it, the death of all of the pax and the pilot himself occurred because nobody bothered to look for them. If they were at a remote dock and they all fell in the water and currents carried them away from shore the outcome would have been the same, without monitoring, even if they never boarded an a/c.

VIA, another Campbell River operator has sat phones and has set up a series of internet cameras so that they know the weather at their destinations/routes. Its feckless and negligent to send people out and to not set up a flight following system that works. If one operator can do it, they all can.

Rude remarks about Justplanecrazy edited out.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by xsbank on Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
Widow
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 4592
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 12:57 pm
Location: Vancouver Island

Post by Widow »

Image

Witnesses 1,2,3, 4 and 6 heard the a/c sounding troubled, and getting progressively worse.

Witnesses 4 and 6 described the sound of the a/c exactly the same way. Witnesses 5 and 6 heard the impact.

Again, he was not over the water until AFTER the engine started sounding troubled.

He would have taken off south, towards the bottom of Quadra, and then turned (over land or east of Quadra), while gaining altitude, towards the northern destination. When the a/c started making "sick" noises, they turned again toward the open channel.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
BoostedNihilist

Post by BoostedNihilist »

.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by BoostedNihilist on Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
justplanecrazy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 815
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:57 pm

Post by justplanecrazy »

Mechanics should never install wrong parts... just like pilots should never forget to switch the tanks, turn on the de-ice, lower the gear, etc. He who is without sin can cast the first stone so I guess you've just told everyone here that when it comes to the BoostedNihilist, there is NO human error.

If I was this mechanic reading your post after having installing 99.9999% correct parts and watching pilots bring planes back for repairs after having landed gear up, I would spit in your general direction. I mean really what's easier looking through an extensive list of parts for this specific make and model of an aircraft and then double checking that the one you ordered is actually the one that showed up, or glancing over and seeing if you have 3 f'ing green lights before planting the aircraft on the ground. One of the easiest and most preventable human errors are gear up landings, yet pilots every year are stupid enough to "f" that one up.

My point is human error is not 100% preventable and every once in a while we have an accident resulting from it. This is just one of those cases. Surprisingly accidents resulting in wrong parts being installed seem to happen less often then pilots forgetting to put gear down and they don't have a wrong part horn, lights that go green after the right part is found, or a flag popping out of the bottom of the aircraft that you can see in the mirror. Feel free to continue flaming him though.

XSbank like I said in my previous post, I missunderstood the situation. I didn't realise he was only planning on departing in the muck. We are our own worse enemy on the coast with pushing the weather. Even though almost all of us do it, we have to realise that when it bites us in the ass, it was our choice. This scenario doesn't sound like it falls under that opinioin.
---------- ADS -----------
 
We have no effective screening methods to make sure pilots are sane.
— Dr. Herbert Haynes, Federal Aviation Authority.
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”