Plane down at Cooking Lake

[Mick G]

Anybody here about this? Apparently the poor old bugger waited for 4 hours to bd rescued due to shallow water levels. Boats couldn't get to him. They ended up using a airboat. Not sure how the plane will be brought out???

[Tailwind W10]

Radio reports I heard had him waiting for 5-1/2 hours. A local in a canoe finally picked him up. Of course the rescue agency said he shouldn't have done that because he doesn't have all the training they have.

I'm really curious about what he was doing there. Apparently a Cessna with floats, and he "caught a wing", I heard one report saying he was taking off. Evidently he hasn't heard the seaplane base was closed years ago.

Gerry

[culver10]

Here is a news report http://www.630ched.com/2016/06/28/11274 ... r_WE.email

[Mick G]

I didn't know the floatplane side of the airport was shut? Was the reason low water levels?

[CFR]

Here is a news report http://www.630ched.com/2016/06/28/11274 ... r_WE.email

That will definitely NOT buff out!

[PilotDAR]

Radio reports I heard had him waiting for 5-1/2 hours. A local in a canoe finally picked him up. Of course the rescue agency said he shouldn't have done that because he doesn't have all the training they have.

It is easy for us pilots to put ourselves in places from which rescue is not so simple. Some citizen's expectation of rescue services suggest that they expect to be followed by a fully equipped DND rescue helicopter everywhere they go. The local fire department had an airboat, which probably had to be trailered, and then a safe launching site and route to the pilot determined. We certainly don't want to read a headline "Three firefighters in airboat aground in Cooking Lake".

Canoes are very unsuitable as rescue vessels. Single rescuer rescues are a remarkably bad idea. Though I don't know the details of this event, I'm imagining a pilot (possibly injured) sitting in/on his broken plane, wishing he were safely ashore - but not in immediate peril where he was. The well meaning canoeist put him in greater peril, as well as himself. Rescue of the pilot was a certainty, just not immediate. The arrival of the fire department at the pilot would have assured proper patient care, with much lower further risk to his well being. Transporting a patient in a canoe introduces all kinds of new risks to them.

If you know that there is no practical rescue coming, then you do what you have to do. But, when you are aware that rescue is coming, you are best to make contact with them upon their arrival, and support there effort as best you can, without interfering with it. Canoeing out to rescue this pilot about the same as pulling out to pass a fire truck to beat them to the call!

What do we expect the Fire Chief to say? He certainly is not going to say that private attempts to rescue someone are welcome. In my capacity as a firefighter, and marine/airboat operator and trainer, I have had to instruct citizens back to shore. I have always make those instructions unmistakably load and clear. Perhaps pilot has been sitting injured in/on his plane for five hours, and really needs rescue. Now I see eager citizen capsize his canoe, and appear to drown, now I have two patients, and I have to either divide scarce resources, or choose to make one wait a long time more for rescue.

A big part of the training, that non rescue personnel do not have, is not to rush out unprepared to perform a task you're not ready nor equipped for - particularly solo! Next in the training will be how to return possibly injured patient to safety without putting them at further risk.

[LousyFisherman]

Since the first thing one is supposed to do in a rescue is determine the status of the people to be rescued I wonder why the professionals were not able to do that in a timely and suitable manner.

Good thing there was a canoeist to check whether anyone was bleeding, or going into diabetic shock or.......

The professionals could have picked up a dead body 5.5 hours later

IMHO
LF

[Tailwind W10]

PilotDAR, I take your points, and for the most part will agree with you.

Just to add a few more details I heard on the radio this morning; the floatplane crashed around 9:40, the rescue crew apparently launched the airboat before noon, and immediately got stuck in the mud. The 'rescuer' is a local, and also a pilot. By around 2 pm he saw the airboat had still not been freed, so he went home and got his canoe. He brought water out to the crash scene where both waited for the airboat to get there.

I will speculate here and imagine the canoeist has paddled cooking lake before. It's a really benign pond, barely able to show whitecaps in a storm. I'd suspect he intended to bring water out to the crash pilot, undoubtedly dehydrated by that time, to check on him, and only effect a rescue if it would have been required. Probably the best of both worlds, in my opinion.

Mick, you're correct, the water level is VERY low. I did my PPL at EZ3 starting in 2009, the seaplane base was already closed then. I've often seen canoes paddling across the lake, every stroke brings up a plume of mud. COPA's 'places to fly' has shown the seaplane base as closed for as long as I can remember, I'm curious why it still shows on the VTA and VNC. I've never had a look at a seaplane supplement to see what it says.

Cheers
Gerry

[PilotDAR]

It is true that sometimes a citizen has equipment which is available, and better suited to the need than the equipment available to the emergency services. In very rare circumstances, the emergency services (and I have) might request assistance of the citizen. Doing so, however, can bring immense liability upon the emergency services/local government, so is to be avoided up to the bitter end.

If I were leading an emergency services rescue, and stuck at shore ('been there, done that), I would have difficulty objecting to a citizen, who appeared to be properly equipped and capable, taking out water/aid. But I could not endorse doing so. It would be the returning the patient to shore which would be the objectionable part. We as volunteer firefighters are absolutely forbidden transporting a patient in our personal vehicles, unless doing so is vital for immediate life safety. Attending to a fellow citizen, without putting yourself at risk is admirable. transporting them is a whole other thing, and to be avoided.

I have been a first hand witness (upon arriving on scene) to a well meaning citizen transporting a badly injured person only a hundred yards in the well meaning citizen's car. This created many problems for us, and them. There was no need to move the person, they were entirely safe where they were found, and emergency services were all on there way. The citizen's car was filled with blood, must have cost a fortune to clean, and they were potentially exposed to a blood borne disease. Evidence was disturbed, and body parts lost, which might have been reattached. Attend to the patient, but keep them where you find them, as long as it is safe there.

Since the first thing one is supposed to do in a rescue is determine the status of the people to be rescued I wonder why the professionals were not able to do that in a timely and suitable manner.

'Cause the person put themselves in a very inaccessible place. Our society cannot afford to have a Comorant helicopter idling on the pad, ready to go, every 50 square miles in Canada. If you fly over it, prepared to be stuck on the surface alone in that place for some time, so reasonable society resources can reach you.

to check whether anyone was bleeding, or going into diabetic shock or.......

And hopefully equipped, prepared and capable to deal with it without creating more problem.

[RatherBeFlying]

You can get places in a canoe that ground SAR units simply cannot reach. Generally the smallest watercraft ground SAR has carries six people, often more. In the High River flood such watercraft were very useful.

Canoes would have been a better choice in looking for two people who were swept away on the Bow and Highwood rivers in separate incidents. It is not realistically possible for ground search parties to completely cover the water's edge. I spent a couple days bush thrashing doing my best with many others. We came up empty.

Eventually the bodies were found by fishermen caught in swept down trees aka sweepers. Zodiacs can't safely get in close enough to check for a body held underwater.

Competent whitewater canoeists can manage that. After a few years of whitewater canoeing, you get a bunch of practice in swift water rescue of people and equipment.

Agreed transport of a seriously injured person in a canoe is a poor idea. In that case a canoe can be used to access the scene and transport people and equipment, including an inflatable that can be pulled back with an injured person.

[PilotDAR]

I entirely agree that canoes are very versatile vessels, and suitable for getting qualified and equipped emergency services people to a patient. It's the perhaps not trained, and certainly not "team dispatched" well meaning citizen who can introduce problems. A professional rescue is the result of a briefed team effort of a trained group, not a solo effort.

[SheriffPatGarrett]

The well meaning canoeist put him in greater peril, as well as himself.

Yes, I've heard of cops preventing the rescue of drowning people using that soviet logic...DAR, you sure you're not JET? Juste un Trou d'Eau?(Justin Elliott Trudeau)

[PilotDAR]

DAR, you sure you're not JET?

Yeah, I'm sue I'm not. My wife's as pretty as his though!

Yes, we have had the police instruct people to remain ashore, while we rescue/recover. I can happily report that every person who we were called to rescue, who unexpectedly entered the water, and was wearing a life jacket when they did, was rescued with no further injury. Unhappily, nearly all of the people who went in without wearing a life jacket did not survive. In Ontario in the last 15 years, four firefighters have drowned (while properly equipped) - while doing water rescue training! Those sad events have greatly changed how we train, and reduced the risks we are allowed to accept during a real rescue.

So, if I see a citizen would be rescuer leaving shore, particularly without being properly equipped for themselves, and the victim, they will be instructed to return, before they become yet another victim themselves. I do recall a few times when a very well prepared citizen was asked to help us, but concerns about public liability are making that really difficult these days.

[pelmet]

All because of an open window....


C-FSGQ, a privately registered Cessna 180H on amphibious floats, was on a flight from
Edmonton/Cooking Lake, AB (CEZ3) to a private strip near Smoky Lake, AB. Shortly after takeoff
from Runway 10 at CEZ3, the pilot side window inadvertently opened at approximately 200 feet
AGL. Since the pilot was unable to close the window, the decision to return to the airport was
made. While in the right turn, the pilot was temporarily blinded by the sun’s reflection on the lake.
The aircraft contacted the surface of the lake and came to rest inverted in shallow water and mud.
There was no post impact fire, however the aircraft was substantially damaged. The pilot exited the
aircraft with minor injuries and called for help using a cellular phone. Due to the shallow water and
muddy conditions, several hours were used to reach the pilot; an airboat was eventually used.