RCMP officer charged after aircraft accident/incident.

[magic wand]

http://www.whitehorsestar.com/archive/s ... -incident/

A Whitehorse RCMP constable has been charged under the Criminal Code with dangerous flying while off duty.
He’s been re-assigned to a desk while an internal investigation continues.

In a press release issued late this morning, the RCMP say the charges were laid after a low-flying aircraft struck an unoccupied vehicle at Fish Lake on Jan. 11.
The Whitehorse pilot has been charged with three counts of the dangerous operation of an aircraft.

The press release does not provide many details; not the type of aircraft involved, nor the type of vehicle struck, what time of day it was or whether the incident happened during takeoff or landing.
It does not say whether the pilot was in full flight close enough to the ground to strike a vehicle.
There were no injuries, but there is nothing to describe the extent of damage to the aircraft and vehicle.
The pilot’s name has not been released. He is scheduled to appear in court May 8 to face the charges.

Senior investigator Barry Holt of the Transportation Safety Board said today the matter does not fall within the board’s mandate so it did not get involved.

He said the board determined the incident did not involve a reportable incident nor accident, so it did not have the mandate investigate.

“So the safety board bowed out of that one,” he said from his Edmonton office.

The accused constable has been assigned to administrative duties pending the outcome of the internal investigation.

The criminal investigation has been reviewed by the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team and was found to be impartial and comprehensive, says the press release.


Are you serious Barry? A guy hits a vehicle with an aircraft, in flight, and you say there is no reason to get involved. How insane is that? It was less than 3 years ago that a very similar accident event occurred in Ft. Good Hope. An aircraft did a low and over and hit a person. I believe that pilot was convicted on both criminal and aviation charges.
It is called "culture" Barry. By allowing this RCMP officer to not be investigated by TSB sends the wrong message. Maybe he can conduct an internal private SMS on himself...I don't think so.
This is almost unbelievable. No CADORS - no report - no process. Hell check out the the CADORS for in and around that date in Whitehorse There is one for leaving a door open on a building. BUT Nope..no need to file a CADORS for this event.
I smell a cover up.

[into the blue]

I am sure some people here will disagree, but low-level buzz jobs are just a form of adolescent behavior. An equivalent of street racing, basically. I don't find anything impressive about either of the two activities.

And as far as the absence of a TSB investigation goes...Well, perhaps, there is indeed absolutely nothing to investigate! Would one really want to spend several hundred man-hours putting together some kind of report just to say (in a politically correct way) that the cause of the incident was a dangerously high testosterone-to-IQ ratio? A CADOR should have definitely been filed, though.

[crazy_aviator]

A CADOR should have definitely been filed, though.

Yes, and the cop should have not beaten the defensless kid to a pulp and covered it up ( no video) and the drunk driving cop that was stopped by a cop friend never did see the light of a court room ,,,dont confuse your Naivity with your ignorance! The old boys club is alive and doing just fine . There are 2 sets of laws , one for the masses, one for the folks who control/dispense the law ( rich, powerful, cops , judges etc)

[Skyhunter]

I don't think you guys understand the responsibility of TSB. TSB's mandate is not to investigate criminal activity! Similar to the military, if in a Flight Safety type investigation, it is suspected that the cause is due to willful illegal activity, the investigation is handed to people with the authority to investigate criminal activity. In this case it would be the RCMP and possibly transport Canada. Any finding the TSB would come up with if they did investigate could not be used for any charges! So it is actually good they stepped away from this one , if indeed it is a criminal act. (not guilty til proven).

[Redneck_pilot86]

“reportable aviation accident” means an accident resulting
directly from the operation of an aircraft, where
(a) a person sustains a serious injury or is killed as a result of
(i) being on board the aircraft,
(ii) coming into contact with any part of the aircraft or
its contents, or
(iii) being directly exposed to the jet blast or rotor
downwash of the aircraft;
(b) the aircraft sustains damage or failure that adversely
affects the structural strength, performance or flight
characteristics of the aircraft and that requires major
repair or replacement of any affected component part; or
(c) the aircraft is missing or inaccessible.

“reportable aviation incident” means an incident resulting
directly from the operation of an airplane having a maximum
certificated take-off weight greater than 5 700 kg, or from the
operation of a rotorcraft having a maximum certificated takeoff
weight greater than 2 250 kg, where
(a) an engine fails or is shut down as a precautionary measure;
(b) a transmission gearbox malfunction occurs;
(c) smoke or fire occurs;
(d) difficulties in controlling the aircraft are encountered
owing to any aircraft system malfunction, weather
phenomena, wake turbulence, uncontrolled vibrations or
operations outside the flight envelope;
(e) the aircraft fails to remain within the intended landing or
take-off area, lands with all or part of the landing gear
retracted or drags a wing tip, an engine pod or any other
part of the aircraft;
(f) any crew member whose duties are directly related to the
safe operation of the aircraft is unable to perform the crew
member’s duties as a result of a physical incapacitation
that poses a threat to the safety of any person, property or
the environment;
(g) depressurization occurs that necessitates an emergency
descent;
(h) a fuel shortage occurs that necessitates a diversion or
requires approach and landing priority at the destination
of the aircraft;
(i) the aircraft is refuelled with the incorrect type of fuel or
contaminated fuel;
(j) a collision, a risk of collision or a loss of separation occurs;
(k) a crew member declares an emergency or indicates any
degree of emergency that requires priority handling by an
air traffic control unit or the standing by of emergency
response services;
(l) a slung load is released unintentionally or as a precautionary
or emergency measure from the aircraft; or
(m) any dangerous goods are released in or from the aircraft.

Based on these definitions, there was no requirement for this to even be reported, assuming no damage to the airplane.

[flyinthebug]

This one sounds very familiar to what happened to the CP at Northern Dene Airways (YPA). He was doing a buzz job and hit the back of the tailgate of a (moving) truck. The gear sheered off and one wheel went flying through the back window narrowly missing the child passenger (but I believe the child was injured). That was the beginning of the end for that CP and NDA as a whole. The CP never flew (commercially) again.

One stupid decision has cost this cop his seat in a plane... for the rest of his career he will be flying a desk (if he is lucky enough to keep his job as a cop). Stupid, stupid, stupid!

Fly safe kids and leave the low flying to the experts like the Colonel.

[Sidebar]

This one sounds very familiar to what happened ... at Northern Dene Airways (YPA).

CADORS 2004C0583:

Winnipeg ACC received a call from the RCMP, Fond-du-Lac, SK detachment, advising of an aircraft - vehicle accident. Apparently, C-FQNO, a Cessna 172 with 2 occupants, departed Fond-du-Lac airstrip and flew approximately 50 - 100 feet AGL, and when they saw a pick-up truck on an ice road 15 miles to the west, the pilot descended and struck the truck. One of the five occupants in the truck was hit and injured. The starboard main landing gear broke off and was recovered by the occupants of the truck. The aircraft then proceeded to Uranium City to land. Upon landing, the aircraft skidded off the runway and damaged the right wing tip, tail section, and incurred several holes in the fuselage. No other reported injuries, no other aircraft inconvenienced.

TSB A04C0086:

TSB reported that the Northern Dene Cessna 172L, registration C-FQNO, was being flown at low level from Fond du Lac, SK, to Uranium City, SK. The aircraft was flown in close proximity to a pickup truck travelling on an ice-road approximately 15 NM from Fond du Lac. The starboard main landing gear struck the truck and one passenger riding in the truck bed. Injuries to the truck passenger were described as non-life threatening. Reportedly the truck cab sustained substantial damage. The main landing gear of the aircraft broke off and was recovered by the other truck occupants. The aircraft continued to Uranium City and sustained substantial damage on landing. RCMP at Fond du Lac have initiated an investigation.

[flyinthebug]

edit

[Doc]

Have I got this right? He hit a truck. With an airplane in flight (the airplane, not the truck) and sustained NO damage to the airplane? Couldn't have been much of a "hit" to the truck?

[bigsky]

Have I got this right? He hit a truck. With an airplane in flight (the airplane, not the truck) and sustained NO damage to the airplane? Couldn't have been much of a "hit" to the truck?

Doc,

From reading the above posted newspaper article, I am not sure we know if there was any damage.
The article does not really reveal any of the details. From the newspaper we read:
"The press release does not provide many details; not the type of aircraft involved, nor the type of vehicle struck, what time of day it was or whether the incident happened during takeoff or landing.
It does not say whether the pilot was in full flight close enough to the ground to strike a vehicle.
There were no injuries, but there is nothing to describe the extent of damage to the aircraft and vehicle."

Often the media fails to read or report all the known details.

Here is a link to the actual RCMP press release.
http://yk.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ViewPage.actio ... ntId=29738

If you read the RCMP release it does say the aircraft was "low flying" and that there was damage to both the aircraft and the vehicle.
It also says it was a small single engine aircraft.

Still not a complete report but somewhat more information than reported by the newspaper.

It is surprising that there is no CADOR on this.

Perhaps over time a few more details will come forth.

[bigsky]

Redneck_pilot86

Based on these definitions, there was no requirement for this to even be reported, assuming no damage to the airplane.

As per my previous report. According to the official RCMP press release -
"Both the vehicle and the small, single-engine aircraft were damaged."
So I think based on your definitions this would be classified as an accident. Again we dont have the full report

I am not sure how the thread has determined there was not damage. The newspaper article says there was no report to the "extent" of damage.
According to the RCMP release there was damage to both the aircraft and vehicle.

[flyinthebug]

I am not sure how the thread has determined there was not damage. The newspaper article says there was no report to the "extent" of damage.
According to the RCMP release there was damage to both the aircraft and vehicle.

Sorry I think that was my fault. I had some misinformation and typed before I confirmed it.

Sidebar...thats the one, yes. DW.

[Bobby868]

All I can say is yes there was damage to both vehicles.

And yes every effort is being made to cover up as much of this as possible.

You can bet if this was anyone of us regular pilots without a badge there would be no end to the charges and the detailed press releases and investigative photos etc.

Instead it's all just a bit of poor judgment and no harm no foul.

I’m going to go puke then have a beer to wash the taste of bile out of my mouth.

Night everyone. Fly safe and if you don’t, don’t get caught cause they won’t have mercy on you like they did with this guy.

[Sidebar]

Fly safe and if you don’t, don’t get caught cause they won’t have mercy on you like they did with this guy.

They had mercy for this guy? From the RCMP news release:

RCMP have charged the pilot, a Whitehorse man, with dangerous operation of an aircraft, contrary to Section 249(1)(c) of the Criminal Code and three counts of reckless operation of an aircraft under the Canadian Aviation Regulations. He is scheduled to appear in court on May 8.

I hardly think there was any cover up or special treatment for a cop. He's facing a criminal charge.

[Independence]

This was a private aircraft where someone made a really, really bad decision but fortunately no one got hurt. I think in addition to the penalty he will receive from the courts, that moment in time will likely have serious impacts in his life over the coming years. I'm not usually a touchy feely guy but I feel for him.

[YYZSaabGuy]

All I can say is yes there was damage to both vehicles.
And yes every effort is being made to cover up as much of this as possible.
You can bet if this was anyone of us regular pilots without a badge there would be no end to the charges and the detailed press releases and investigative photos etc.
Instead it's all just a bit of poor judgment and no harm no foul.
I’m going to go puke then have a beer to wash the taste of bile out of my mouth.
Night everyone. Fly safe and if you don’t, don’t get caught cause they won’t have mercy on you like they did with this guy.

Huh?

This incident has been reported both in the Whitehorse Star as well as other media (check the Google).
The TSB and TC Aviation Enforcement were notified and the TSB has explained publicly why this incident doesn't fall within its mandate.
The RCMP has investigated, and have filed charges under both the Criminal Code as well as under the CARS.
They have also launched a separate internal investigation under the RCMP Act.
The Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) has reviewed the RCMP investigation and found it to be thorough and comprehensive.

The folks behind this particular cover-up obviously couldn't organize a piss-up in a bar.

This was a private aircraft where someone made a really, really bad decision but fortunately no one got hurt. I think in addition to the penalty he will receive from the courts, that moment in time will likely have serious impacts in his life over the coming years. I'm not usually a touchy feely guy but I feel for him.

Agreed it was a really, really bad decision that could very easily have turned out much worse. I have no feelings for this guy other than mild curiosity as to how somebody this stupid ever got licensed in the first place: pilots are supposedly trained to know better. I hope they throw the book at him.

[Redneck_pilot86]

Redneck_pilot86

Based on these definitions, there was no requirement for this to even be reported, assuming no damage to the airplane.

As per my previous report. According to the official RCMP press release -
"Both the vehicle and the small, single-engine aircraft were damaged."
So I think based on your definitions this would be classified as an accident. Again we dont have the full report

I am not sure how the thread has determined there was not damage. The newspaper article says there was no report to the "extent" of damage.
According to the RCMP release there was damage to both the aircraft and vehicle.

I had only read the article here, not the rcmp press release. It appears you are correct, which opens up a lot of questions as to why there isn't a cadors.

[dashx]

Finally!

finally......

A thread about cops and aviation. That are related.

Has hell frozen over????

[xsbank]

I remember a TBM operation out of Grand Forks in the dim past when one of the pilots was annoyed with how closely the locals parked at the threshold to watch the planes land and take-off. The cars effectively shortened the runway. On one approach, said pilot rolled the wheel of his TBM across the roof of a parked car and left skid marks and a dent. Nobody would admit to it (there were numerous TBMs) until it turned out our hero had recently had a tire changed and his tire was the only one that matched the tire marks on the roof of the car!

Can't remember what happened to him as I'm sure he claimed it was an accident; I'm sure he lived happily ever after.

[C-FABH]

A collision is considered a reportable aviation incident. I've known a few TSB investigators that interpret a "collision" to be as simple as a catering truck driving into the side of parked airliner.

If the TSB does not believe this constitutes a collision, then the officer should be able to fight the charges and easily win.

[Skyhunter]

Yes they will investigate a collision, up until they think it was caused by willful breaking of the law, at that point they will not investigate and advise the proper authorities to investigate. In this case the RCMP. Just because TSB isn't investigating has no bearing whether the guy could win a case in court. In fact most likely the opposite, as TSB's evidence by law can not be used to prosecute.

edited to correct spelling

[C-FABH]

Yes they will investigate a collision, up until they think it was caused by willful breaking of the law, at that point they will not investigate and advise the proper authorities to investigate.

They'll assess a reportable collision and assign it a Class 5. It doesn't necessarily mean they will investigate.

The quotation from Mr. Holt states this did not involve a reportable incident nor accident. Which suggests there was no collision.

[Redneck_pilot86]

A collision is considered a reportable aviation incident. I've known a few TSB investigators that interpret a "collision" to be as simple as a catering truck driving into the side of parked airliner.

If the TSB does not believe this constitutes a collision, then the officer should be able to fight the charges and easily win.

A collision is only reportable for aircraft over 5700 kg, or if major damage occurred.

[bigsky]

AND...Here is the rest of the story...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/sto ... ously.html

There are a few fuzzy photos within the link.

[linecrew]