Westwind

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

Post Reply
spruceair
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2014 6:16 pm

Re: Westwind

Post by spruceair » Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:05 pm

FlyGy wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 5:34 pm
atwork wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 4:10 pm
Saw the WEW ATR flying around La Ronge this afternoon
Probably a test flight with a buyer.
Heard the 705 AOC has been reinstated, probably some training flights with transport Canada watching.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
HO Driver
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 1:58 am
Location: 308 Negra Arroyo Lane

Re: Westwind

Post by HO Driver » Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:58 am

spruceair wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:05 pm
FlyGy wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 5:34 pm
atwork wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 4:10 pm
Saw the WEW ATR flying around La Ronge this afternoon
Probably a test flight with a buyer.
Heard the 705 AOC has been reinstated, probably some training flights with transport Canada watching.
Ya, with TC watching :roll:
I feel much safer now. Maybe if they would have been "watching" in the first f***ing place this probably wouldn't have happened. Muppets.....
---------- ADS -----------
  

77W
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:12 pm
Location: Flight Levels

Re: Westwind

Post by 77W » Mon Aug 20, 2018 7:12 pm

---------- ADS -----------
  

rigpiggy
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2292
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 7:17 pm
Location: west to east and west again

Re: Westwind

Post by rigpiggy » Thu Aug 23, 2018 7:43 am

---------- ADS -----------
  

tbaylx
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 721
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 6:30 pm

Re: Westwind

Post by tbaylx » Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:00 am

Not yet it isn't. They're writing the draft report, there is still quite a process to go before the final report is released
---------- ADS -----------
  

GARRETT
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 11:46 pm

Re: Westwind

Post by GARRETT » Wed Dec 05, 2018 9:35 pm

Hopefully these "big" changes will get the company back to the level it was at 5-6 years ago. It's crazy how fast a company will fall when you appoint the wrong people to be in key upper managerial positions. WWA is in need of a fresh start to get their priorities back on track. This is a step in the right direction.

https://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-n ... atal-crash
---------- ADS -----------
  

bobcaygeon
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 542
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 8:03 am

Re: Westwind

Post by bobcaygeon » Thu Dec 06, 2018 3:14 pm

GARRETT wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 9:35 pm
Hopefully these "big" changes will get the company back to the level it was at 5-6 years ago. It's crazy how fast a company will fall when you appoint the wrong people to be in key upper managerial positions. WWA is in need of a fresh start to get their priorities back on track. This is a step in the right direction.

https://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-n ... atal-crash
If you look at the history of the new crew running this show there's been a lot of jobs on their resume over time.
---------- ADS -----------
  

goingnowherefast
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1425
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Westwind

Post by goingnowherefast » Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:57 pm

EIC will own Westwind in about 2 years.
---------- ADS -----------
  

GARRETT
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 11:46 pm

Re: Westwind

Post by GARRETT » Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:20 am

goingnowherefast wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:57 pm
EIC will own Westwind in about 2 years.
I think you're probably right.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
FlyGy
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 522
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Westwind

Post by FlyGy » Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:28 am

What WEW needs is for the management of TWA that departed after the merger to return. I think the wrong management team left.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
FlyGy
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 522
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Westwind

Post by FlyGy » Wed Dec 12, 2018 11:08 am

---------- ADS -----------
  

golden hawk
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 8:43 am

Re: Westwind

Post by golden hawk » Fri Dec 14, 2018 6:34 pm

---------- ADS -----------
  

After Dark
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 11:22 pm

Re: Westwind

Post by After Dark » Mon Dec 17, 2018 6:25 pm

Nothing will change with Pat Campling still at the table with the rest of the adults.
---------- ADS -----------
  

C.W.E.
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 945
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Westwind

Post by C.W.E. » Mon Dec 17, 2018 7:10 pm

The bottom line is it is the plots responsibility to ensure the airplane is not flown with contaminated flight surfaces.

The best way to stop these needless deaths, injuries and wrecked aircraft is to sue the pilots into bankruptcy and make them unemployable in the industry.

I have zero sympathy for any pilot who deliberately puts the public at risk or has an accident due to their negligence in the operation of the airplane.
---------- ADS -----------
  

goingnowherefast
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1425
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Westwind

Post by goingnowherefast » Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:40 am

C.W.E. wrote: The best way to stop these needless deaths, injuries and wrecked aircraft is to sue the pilots into bankruptcy and make them unemployable in the industry.
I'd say do that, but to the operators who teach young and upcoming pilots that "a little ice is okay" "it's like speeding, everybody drives 10 over".

The thing cat seems to conveniently forget in his trolling is that there are operators who make their money bending and breaking rules. They hire fresh, moldable 200hr pilots and teach them that this is the way the real world is. If they don't buy into it, then they loose their first job with 220 hours total time. Gross weight, minimums, icing, fuel, all "personal limitations", and the best pilots push the hardest.

Every pilot learns in flight school about the clean wing concept. Then you get to your first job, are taught that "a "little ice" is like driving 10 over the limit. Those deice garden sprayers are there to make TC happy, sorta like the BS excuses you give to a cop when you get pulled over." I have sympathy for those pilots, but cat would rather bankrupt them and make them unemployable.

I bet if TC went to the accountable executive at some of the scummy operators and said "in a week, I'm going to be watching your operation from any one of your destinations, and I'm going to be there for a while. If I see one single plane take off with residential ice on the leading edge, I'm going to fine you personally 2x your annual total income". I bet there would be glycol and proper sprayers set up everywhere immediately. I also bet that the culture and teachings would change just as fast.
---------- ADS -----------
  

GARRETT
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 11:46 pm

Re: Westwind

Post by GARRETT » Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:13 am

Good post GNF, every word is true, that's exactly what happens in the north of Canada. As for suing the pilots into bankruptcy, is that really going to do anything positive? What would that change? Just more unemployed 250 hour newbies who tried to stand up to the boss.
What TC really needs to do is make an example of the s**tty "accountable executives" who sit behind their desks and justify not having de-ice facilities available to their crew. Actually hold them accountable for once!! As it stands the AE is just a BS title on a BS safety statement in a manual, nothing more. Maybe sue these guys into bankruptcy instead of the pilots.
I also think some of the CP's out there need to grab a set of balls and stand up for your pilots! If you know they don't have all the tools to do the job properly, why are you not marching into the DFO's office demanding they change things? Do your f**king job!!!!
---------- ADS -----------
  

C.W.E.
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 945
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Westwind

Post by C.W.E. » Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:35 am

Good post GNF, every word is true, that's exactly what happens in the north of Canada. As for suing the pilots into bankruptcy, is that really going to do anything positive? What would that change?
If the pilots who break the rules were sued into bankruptcy and out of the industry eventually there would be a shortage of pilots that will fly for these operators.

What TC really needs to do is make an example of the s**tty "accountable executives" who sit behind their desks and justify not having de-ice facilities available to their crew. Actually hold them accountable for once!! As it stands the AE is just a BS title on a BS safety statement in a manual, nothing more. Maybe sue these guys into bankruptcy instead of the pilots.
I also think some of the CP's out there need to grab a set of balls and stand up for your pilots! If you know they don't have all the tools to do the job properly, why are you not marching into the DFO's office demanding they change things? Do your f**king job!!!!
In the sixty five years I have been flying I can't recall either T.C. or DFO's doing anything worth while to stop illegal flying.

Therefore I still believe it is up to the individual pilot to refuse to be pressured into flying illegally.

It worked for me and I retired with over thirty thousand accident free hours and zero regulation violations.
---------- ADS -----------
  

trey kule
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4482
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Re: Westwind

Post by trey kule » Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:22 pm

It is interesting, that in other jurisdictions, the regulator does hold the accountable executive....accountable.

The AE can pretty much hire who they like for ops mgr, DOM, CP. ( a few rules on the CP).
They screw up. It is the accountable executive who is......accountable. That does not excuse them from screwups, but it eliminates the sacrifice of some weak willed people who buckled to pressure.

TC’s enforcement policy seemed to be to bully and beat the weak, and leave the more formidable account executives alone. In my opinion, a rather misguided strategy.

The execption is those pilots who are willing to break every rule asked of them, to build hours and move on,

I wish afew of the parents of those who willing joined these sleazy companies, and lost a child would post on here. Maybe some of the youngins would get the picture.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Everyone is a genius in hindsight

shimmydampner
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:59 pm

Re: Westwind

Post by shimmydampner » Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:49 pm

As always, ultimately the responsibility lies with the PIC. And I'm not familiar with the operator in question so take the following opinion with that grain of salt and know that it's worth what you paid for it. But I've flown in the north for long enough to be of the opinion that an equal helping of blame lies with the operator and whatever government body is responsible for operating any given northern airport for not providing the necessary equipment for the safe and legal operation of aircraft in and out of these dumps. The operators don't care to because they're really only interested in safety insofar as it doesn't affect their bottom line. In reality, the cost of properly equipping all of the places serviced by companies like this with suitable de-ice equipment for 705 ops would be prohibitive. It would just be cheaper to not go under those conditions. Of course, that's not an option if there's a nickel to be made. So you end up with garden sprayers full of iso. A nice little window dressing to give the illusion of a commitment to safety. Now the flight crew can be good dutiful boys and girls who get the job done and also bear all the responsibility. Just so long as we all agree not to ask exactly how a flight crew is supposed to de-ice all the critical surfaces of a large turbo prop using a garden sprayer while it's dark and snowing and minus 30 and blowing 25 knots and still make any kind of a hold over time. Do they make 30 foot A-frame ladders to get the tail? Hope your copilot has big brass balls to get up there.
And the various governments responsible for operating the aerodromes in these remote locations, do they bear any responsibility? It would be considered absurd if there were no fueling infrastructure on site in most of these places, be it a truck or pumps. In locations like these where there is potential for ice more often than not, wouldn't suitable de-ice equipment be just as, if not more critical to the safe and legal operation of aircraft that the communities supposedly rely on? I mean, outside of the high arctic, I can usually take round trip fuel while happily bumping payload. I suppose that would bring us back to the operators not appreciating that idea very much.
All of that to say that in this case, I don't really believe that bankruptcy by lawsuit is a fair punishment for the flight crew. Should they have attempted takeoff? Obviously not. And it's a devastating mistake they'll have to live with forever. But were they really given the tools required to do their job safely and legally? I don't think so. And for that, the operator should bear some responsibility. Those who fly in the north know the reality of situations like these. You're expected to "make it work" whatever the scenario. Doing it by the book would affect the bottom line, so the flight crew is expected to put their life and license on the line in order to make a profit for somebody else. Those who can and do are considered the best. Those who don't or can't are considered to be not cut out for flying in the north. I can't speak to all of them, but I strongly suspect that, explicit or implied, there's almost always some level of pressure to get 'er done with a lot of operators.
---------- ADS -----------
  

goingnowherefast
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1425
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Westwind

Post by goingnowherefast » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:07 pm

TSB's survey was pretty damning.
---------- ADS -----------
  

digits_
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1965
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Westwind

Post by digits_ » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:30 pm

goingnowherefast wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:07 pm
TSB's survey was pretty damning.
Are there official results from that yet?
---------- ADS -----------
  

goingnowherefast
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1425
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Westwind

Post by goingnowherefast » Sun Jan 13, 2019 4:59 am

http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/recommanda ... -a1803.asp

"Thousands of flights take off every year from remote northern airports. Some airports serve as hubs, experience higher traffic volumes, and may have better equipment.

The absence of adequate equipment increases the likelihood that pilots will conduct a takeoff in an aircraft that has frost, ice, or snow adhering to any of its critical surfaces. Additionally, in the absence of adverse consequences, taking off with contamination on critical surfaces is a deviation that has become normalized. Therefore, providing adequate de-icing and anti-icing equipment may not be sufficient to reduce the likelihood of aircraft taking off with contaminated critical surfaces.
"


It's not the statistics of the survey, but it is the findings from it. I can't seem to find the actual statistical results, but there are mentions of it in this news article:

https://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-n ... lane-crash
---------- ADS -----------
  

shimmydampner
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:59 pm

Re: Westwind

Post by shimmydampner » Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:56 am

goingnowherefast wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 4:59 am
Additionally, in the absence of adverse consequences, taking off with contamination on critical surfaces is a deviation that has become normalized. Therefore, providing adequate de-icing and anti-icing equipment may not be sufficient to reduce the likelihood of aircraft taking off with contaminated critical surfaces.
Thanks for that link. What an amazing bullsh!t cop-out report in spite of common sense statements like: "The absence of adequate equipment increases the likelihood that pilots will conduct a takeoff in an aircraft that has frost, ice, or snow adhering to any of its critical surfaces." Then they immediately go on to basically say that because it's become a "normalized" practice, even if proper equipment was available, sometimes crews might not take the time to use it. So instead, they recommend audits, policies, procedures and checklists. Basically, a bunch of paper tigers that just ads another layer of CYA for the operator, does nothing to protect the traveling public, and still hangs the flight crews out to dry. Incredible.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7686
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: Westwind

Post by iflyforpie » Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:20 am

I don’t know. I’m inclined to think the other way in certain aspects.

I’ve seen operators taking Type IV in severe clear weather. Not just Encore and Jazz, but northern operators who should know better.

Part of it is lack of knowledge. Experience levels have dropped drastically in the last few years. But the other part of it is decorum. People know that snow and ice can bring down aircraft and seeing the plane get sprayed is reassuring to them that the pilots and operators are doing their due diligence.

I heard a story (don’t know if it’s true or not) about how WestJet got approval to not deice their horizontal stabilizers for thin layers of contamination, because the top of the stabilizer isn’t an aerodynamically critical part of the aircraft: the bottom is. But after a parade of customer questions about why they weren’t doing it even though every other airline was doing it, they decided it wasn’t worth the effort. The (perhaps perceived) tension is huge when there are two identical aircraft on the ramp and ones getting sprayed and the other isn’t. Or when you did a call out because you shot through moderate ice to land at below freezing, only to have it turn to positives with rain by the time you leave.

So yes I think that just like even though it’s legal people will still get marijuana from their dealers, pilots will still fly contaminated because the plane flew just fine when it was contaminated, it feels like a very different vibe this year with overuse of deice and anti ice and avoidance of remote strips if there’s any chance of getting contaminated.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?

digits_
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1965
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Westwind

Post by digits_ » Sun Jan 13, 2019 12:42 pm

iflyforpie wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:20 am
Part of it is lack of knowledge.
The "There is no such thing as a little bit of ice"-dogma is doing more harm than good in that regard. There is an amount of ice that is ok to be on the wings. Not legal, but safe. There should be research to show pilots and ground crew how much is too much. If you tell everyone you'll die if you take off with a little bit of ice, and you (inadvertently?) end up taking off with a bit of ice, nobody will believe the danger of ice on the wings. And ice on the wings IS a big danger, but a small amount is not. Do the research and the tests, tell pilots how much ice, what type of ice etc is realistically a problem and you'll create a much safer environment.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”