New North Star Basler Accident (Number 3)

[PilotDAR]

Rumour I heard is that one was a write-off and wasn't going to be rebuilt.

I heard something like that too....

[valleyboy]

Too bad the winter roads are so bad this year. The fuselage is certainly worth salvage since I'm sure that Basler could get it for a very cheap price and put it back together. For the cost of a new Basler and the limited supply of airframes I'll be surprised if it doesn't find it's away to Oshkosh. Very easy to put it on a empty trailer if they get a break with the roads. The environment will not let them leave it where it came to rest. If you are forced to move it a few bucks more to truck it out is nothing. Time will tell.

[98 Corolla]

I would not want to be taking that airplane out of the bush in the summer time. The black flies are so thick any exposed skin would be a bloody pulp in an hour. They actually use "Black fly" as their radio call sign.

[Illya Kuryakin]

Salvage?
It's "TOAST" kids. The work involved would far outweigh the cost of another airframe. Perhaps some parts. Maybe.
Now everybody take a deep breath and STOP PUSHING WEATHER!!!!!

[valleyboy]

could be toast but the ID plate alone they could resurrect it. and really at over 7 million canadian you say it's not worth it if basler were to buy the salvage -- I wonder -- wx was a factor but not the cause.

[goingnowherefast]

The insurance company probably owns the wreckage. They'll now try to mitigate their losses by selling it. I'm sure the folks in Oshkosh will be interested. Who gets it will depend on who has the highest bid.

Yes the data plate is still good, likely so is a portion of the airframe. Combine that with other wrecks and you could end up with a complete airplane. This particular data plate may not fly again, but portions of the airframe might, or vise versa. It's really up to what's broken, what's repairable and what needs replaced. Maybe there's another plane that spun around in a wind storm, the rudder and vertical stab wacked something and this plane has a good vertical. I dunno, just thinking hypothetically.

Either way, no point pushing weather and wrecking a good airplane over some pop and chips.

[Maynard]

could be toast but the ID plate alone they could resurrect it. and really at over 7 million canadian you say it's not worth it if basler were to buy the salvage -- I wonder -- wx was a factor but not the cause.

“Weather was a factor” is nothing but a cheap excuse. They new the weather when they took off, it’s 100% on the pilots why the plane ended up in the bush. The same company landed in peawanuck....on approach number 5. It’s no shock the operation has showed its true colours, on the Basler side anyways.

[pelmet]

could be toast but the ID plate alone they could resurrect it. and really at over 7 million canadian you say it's not worth it if basler were to buy the salvage -- I wonder -- wx was a factor but not the cause.

What was the cause?

[Illya Kuryakin]

could be toast but the ID plate alone they could resurrect it. and really at over 7 million canadian you say it's not worth it if basler were to buy the salvage -- I wonder -- wx was a factor but not the cause.

What was the cause?

Um, it hit the ground
Illya

[Illya Kuryakin]

could be toast but the ID plate alone they could resurrect it. and really at over 7 million canadian you say it's not worth it if basler were to buy the salvage -- I wonder -- wx was a factor but not the cause.

“Weather was a factor” is nothing but a cheap excuse. They new the weather when they took off, it’s 100% on the pilots why the plane ended up in the bush. The same company landed in peawanuck....on approach number 5. It’s no shock the operation has showed its true colours, on the Basler side anyways.

Hey Maynard! Well, they would know the WX to a point. They'd have YTL and whatever else I close, but nothing about ZPB. Lots of guys missing that day. I was in the 'hood. There are approaches for both ends, but I suspect a home made approach was in use. I have no proof except.....where they ended up. I know JY and NW.......thought the reins would be tighter.
Five approaches in Peawanuck? Ouch! It's worth two......but five is a death wish.
Bottom line. We have so few numbers written in stone, there's NO EXCUSE for this crap to be happening in 2020.
Cheers
Illya

[valleyboy]

What was the cause?

Like any other accident there is never just one cause. I wouldn't think that would not need an explanation these days. The icing was obvious (according to all comments) the aircraft is capable of carrying shit load, but with that comes special considerations in manoeuvring, especially with an aircraft that is a handful clean wing in approach configuration and manoeuvring how they were. Straight to landing is a far better plan.

[pelmet]

What was the cause?

Like any other accident there is never just one cause. I wouldn't think that would not need an explanation these days.

My apologies, I used cause in the singular form because you did as well.

The icing was obvious (according to all comments) the aircraft is capable of carrying shit load, but with that comes special considerations in manoeuvring, especially with an aircraft that is a handful clean wing in approach configuration and manoeuvring how they were. Straight to landing is a far better plan.

Reading between the lines of significant icing being mentioned combined with maneuvering, one wonders if this was a loss of control accident versus a CFIT type of accident. In the bad old days some crews that were determined to get in(such as in an emergency of course) would choose to create their own straight-in approach in order to avoid having to circle if they were intimately familiar with the approach path. I always felt that the legal way wasn't necessarily the safest way or even close to it. Something all newbies should learn quickly in aviation.


I must say, that your statements are of much greater use on this forum than this type…

What was the cause?

Um, it hit the ground
Illya

[valleyboy]

My information is that it was lose of control, not cfit. Like I always say the DC-3 is a princes and the Basler DC-3T is her ugly sister, not nearly as stable and certainly less forgiving. It will be interesting to see the investigation results.

I understand that the thought of removing one mistake out of the swiss cheese model will usually be enough to mitigate an accident but I find the tendency that human nature usually prefers to zero in on a single issue, the max is a perfect example how this has a tendency to run wild.

[Jean-Pierre]

Yes many cause.
Cause 1. They flew into the ground
Cause 2. The ground didn't move
Cause 3. The ground was harder than the plane

When do you apologist stop.

[pelmet]

My information is that it was lose of control, not cfit. Like I always say the DC-3 is a princes and the Basler DC-3T is her ugly sister, not nearly as stable and certainly less forgiving. It will be interesting to see the investigation results.

I understand that the thought of removing one mistake out of the swiss cheese model will usually be enough to mitigate an accident but I find the tendency that human nature usually prefers to zero in on a single issue, the max is a perfect example how this has a tendency to run wild.

Thanks, your information here along with the last few posts shows the vast difference in the quality of information posted on threads. The NTSB usually gives a single probable cause but does frequently give contributing factors. Still, it is a single probable cause statement.

[goingnowherefast]

I've departed numerious times to an airport with crap weather. Sometimes the weather improved, other times I executed a missed approach then diverted to a suitable alternate. Rarely the weather reached the approach ban and I simply diverted before even starting the approach. However, I have NEVER crashed because the weather sucked. There are great tools available to pilots called missed approaches (VFR pilots will do a 180) and diversions that have so far prevented me and many many others from crashing due to bad weather.

The plane didn't crash cause the weather sucked. The plane crashed because of the inappropriate actions of the flight crew in response to the crap weather.

[TeePeeCreeper]

I always felt that the legal way wasn't necessarily the safest way or even close to it. Something all newbies should learn quickly in aviation.

I must say, that your statements are of much greater use on this forum than this type.

Pelmet,

I think I know the premise of what you're driving at but are you seriously advocating and/or urging the "newbies" to break the rules?

You can't be a safety advocate while suggesting that one needs to break them... Once in awhile ya know' when prudent you say? Please tell me I misunderstood you?

We've had our fair share of disagreements over the years but your last statement would be of far greater use if you advocated what you preach.

As mentioned before, I highly doubt we'd squabble if we were to meet over a coffee in a civil manner.

Respectfully,
TPC

[Mick G]

Yes many cause.
Cause 1. They flew into the ground
Cause 2. The ground didn't move
Cause 3. The ground was harder than the plane

When do you apologist stop.

This has to be my favorite comment on a long time. Ha ha.

NORTH STAR 0 - PLANET EARTH 1 (or is it 3?)

[pelmet]

I always felt that the legal way wasn't necessarily the safest way or even close to it. Something all newbies should learn quickly in aviation.

Pelmet,

I think I know the premise of what you're driving at but are you seriously advocating and/or urging the "newbies" to break the rules?

You can't be a safety advocate while suggesting that one needs to break them... Once in awhile ya know' when prudent you say? Please tell me I misunderstood you?

We've had our fair share of disagreements over the years but your last statement would be of far greater use if you advocated what you preach.

As mentioned before, I highly doubt we'd squabble if we were to meet over a coffee in a civil manner.

Respectfully,
TPC

Thank for the response TPC. Nothing wrong with disagreements, it is how they are handled/worded and I appreciate your response.

I won't advocate or urge that newbies break the rules. Perhaps better said that following the rules strictly is not a guarantee of a higher level of safety in all cases even if it is in most cases.

One could look at a couple of scenarios.

For example, you have a C172 on a cross-country over fairly remote terrain to another airport and calculate that you can just make it with your 30 minutes of reserve fuel. It is certainly legal, but is it the safest. Perhaps one could take 3 extra gallons and be 18 pounds overweight on takeoff. One could remove 18 pounds of payload but the only thing left to be removed is a 200 pound passenger. Of course, there may be other options such as a longer flight to another airport but it has no fuel available or the weather is marginal over in that direction. One could cancel the flight or remove that passenger, the safest thing to do. But for someone who is determined to go, are you really a safer pilot by accepting the 30 minute reserve and hoping that the winds are as forecast or are you a more dangerous pilot for taking three extra gallons of fuel. In a world where running out of fuel is unfortunately quite frequent, an extra few gallons may have saved a few lives.

Another example might be a situation I encountered under the old regulations on a flight down to the US. It was a nice sunny day until I encountered lake effect weather. It was not unexpected and the tops were about 3000'. I was in a Canadian registered aircraft flying over the US. My understanding was that I had to follow the most restrictive rules of the two countries. At the time, VFR on top was not allowed in Canada but it was in the US. The weather briefing said 1-2 miles vis underneath the fairly low cloud, legal in uncontrolled airspace but not particularly safe. Meanwhile, nice and clear on top. If only it was legal for a Canadian registered aircraft to fly VFR on top like the Americans. Of course, I could turn around and head somewhere else as the safest thing to do. What I ended up doing is irrelevant but I can tell you that legally flying around in poor vis is not the safest option for someone determined to press on and yet still follow the rules. In a world where many have died flying in marginal weather because they were determined to press on, there may have been better alternatives to achieve their goal.

[flyingnorm]

I always felt that the legal way wasn't necessarily the safest way or even close to it. Something all newbies should learn quickly in aviation.

Pelmet,

I think I know the premise of what you're driving at but are you seriously advocating and/or urging the "newbies" to break the rules?

You can't be a safety advocate while suggesting that one needs to break them... Once in awhile ya know' when prudent you say? Please tell me I misunderstood you?

We've had our fair share of disagreements over the years but your last statement would be of far greater use if you advocated what you preach.

As mentioned before, I highly doubt we'd squabble if we were to meet over a coffee in a civil manner.

Respectfully,
TPC

Thank for the response TPC. Nothing wrong with disagreements, it is how they are handled/worded and I appreciate your response.

I won't advocate or urge that newbies break the rules. Perhaps better said that following the rules strictly is not a guarantee of a higher level of safety in all cases even if it is in most cases.

One could look at a couple of scenarios.

For example, you have a C172 on a cross-country over fairly remote terrain to another airport and calculate that you can just make it with your 30 minutes of reserve fuel. It is certainly legal, but is it the safest. Perhaps one could take 3 extra gallons and be 18 pounds overweight on takeoff. One could remove 18 pounds of payload but the only thing left to be removed is a 200 pound passenger. Of course, there may be other options such as a longer flight to another airport but it has no fuel available or the weather is marginal over in that direction. One could cancel the flight or remove that passenger, the safest thing to do. But for someone who is determined to go, are you really a safer pilot by accepting the 30 minute reserve and hoping that the winds are as forecast or are you a more dangerous pilot for taking three extra gallons of fuel. In a world where running out of fuel is unfortunately quite frequent, an extra few gallons may have saved a few lives.

Another example might be a situation I encountered under the old regulations on a flight down to the US. It was a nice sunny day until I encountered lake effect weather. It was not unexpected and the tops were about 3000'. I was in a Canadian registered aircraft flying over the US. My understanding was that I had to follow the most restrictive rules of the two countries. At the time, VFR on top was not allowed in Canada but it was in the US. The weather briefing said 1-2 miles vis underneath the fairly low cloud, legal in uncontrolled airspace but not particularly safe. Meanwhile, nice and clear on top. If only it was legal for a Canadian registered aircraft to fly VFR on top like the Americans. Of course, I could turn around and head somewhere else as the safest thing to do. What I ended up doing is irrelevant but I can tell you that legally flying around in poor vis is not the safest option for someone determined to press on and yet still follow the rules. In a world where many have died flying in marginal weather because they were determined to press on, there may have been better alternatives to achieve their goal.

“Determined to press on” is only relevant to the military. In all other settings, “determined to press on” is a product of someones mind, and that mentality seldom leads a pilot or company to positive outcomes. A revenue flight is most costly when it ends up in the bush, not when you fly YPL-ZPB-YPL without unloading. This crazy wx pushing thats happening in NWO has been going on a long time. More recently, better equipment is making pilots bolder to do stupider things. Why are approaches being modified? Is there an operational advantage to going to the 5 fix instead of a stabilized approach like the rest of the world uses? Why are pilots cutting each other off on instrument approaches? Why are pilots landing against the flow of traffic with 15 kt tailwinds? Why are minimums getting busted? Where did airmanship go? It seems we are seeing a lot of corners cut. Theres a “its the bush, get used to it” attitude that kills people and bends airplanes.