Westwind

[North Shore]

From a friend of a friend, they were overweight and didn't use the whole runway.

Yet to be determined if ground/air icing was a contributing factor.

Explains the "lack of company oversight". Also makes it obvious the pilots will be hung out to dry and the company won't be standing behind them.

Good luck.

They'd have to be hugely overweight, and really short to make weight a factor, IMHO. Which, I think brings the discussion back to wing contamination, or (partial) power loss

[C.W.E.]

If it was a partial power loss they would know by now and make it public.

[tps8903]

Deleted.

[atphat]

My airplane with less than half the pax and full of fuel is no where near overweight. That’s kind of how big planes work.

Big airplanes do not carry freight as well as passengers?

I was told when traveling out of San Jose CR to YYZ on passes that even though the flight may be showing empty seats you may still not get on. Apparently sometimes they are weight restricted due to carrying quit a bit of cargo

wow. Of course big airplanes carry freight. San Jose has more to do with prevailing winds and mountainous terrain than cargo....for what it's worth. I've seen the WW ATR around. It's pretty much an all pax operation....at least it used to be, it's why it was so desired. Hence my question.

[C.W.E.]

Both of those are pretty large assumptions.

O.K. if they are large assumptions would you educate me?

If they had a partial power loss why did the crew not report the partial power loss after the accident?

If the partial power loss occurred after they were airborne would they not want that to be public knowledge rather than people wondering if they chose to take off with contaminated wings?

[tps8903]

Deleted.

[rookiepilot]

they will also tell you not to talk to the investigators as well.....it's your right to keep you mouth shut....and the smart thing to do.

Wow. A crew involved in a major accident can actually refuse to help investigators learn the cause, as to prevent future accidents?

Or would even choose to do so?

[Cliff Jumper]

Wow. A crew involved in a major accident can actually refuse to help investigators learn the cause, as to prevent future accidents?

Not really. CTAISB Act Quotes..... ( http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... lText.html )

(9) An investigator who is investigating a transportation occurrence may
(a) (i) by notice in writing signed by the investigator, require the person to produce the information to the investigator or to attend before the investigator and give a statement referred to in section 30, under oath or solemn affirmation if required by the investigator, and

Plus, why would you want to withhold the truth? It's completely protected....

(7) A statement shall not be used against the person who made it in any legal or other proceedings except in a prosecution for perjury or for giving contradictory evidence or a prosecution under section 35.

[FlyGy]

I've seen the WW ATR around. It's pretty much an all pax operation....at least it used to be, it's why it was so desired. Hence my question.

Have you flown on it? I've been on both Transwest and Westwind many times over the years, often there is freight strapped down on passenger seats because the cargo hold was full. I've been told that this flight was no different.

[atphat]

I've seen the WW ATR around. It's pretty much an all pax operation....at least it used to be, it's why it was so desired. Hence my question.

Have you flown on it? I've been on both Transwest and Westwind many times over the years, often there is freight strapped down on passenger seats because the cargo hold was full. I've been told that this flight was no different.

I have not. Fair enough.

[Cat Driver]

Thanks for giving us all the good advice tps8903 it makes reading this forum all that much more important for me to learn what to do and what not to do.

So in a nut shell if you are involved in a serious accident do not co-operate with the accident investigators let a lawyer talk to them. For sure if something in the airplane did not work and it was the main cause for crashing do not tell anyone so as to protect myself, yeh that makes perfect sense to me.

How about if I damage something in the airplane that makes it highly likely that it may eventually kill someone unless it is fixed, would your advice be don't tell anyone?

By the way what do they put in your water in Newfoundland now that makes you so much smarter than the rest of us?

[tps8903]

I've deleted my original post. I stand by my post, however have no interest in engaging with a troll online. I love debating, but when people start commenting on where I live and how smart I think I am, well I'm just wasting my time and it angers me. WOOOO SAAAA.

[C.W.E.]

deleted

[rookiepilot]

I've deleted my original post. I stand by my post, however have no interest in engaging with a troll online. I love debating, but when people start commenting on where I live and how smart I think I am, well I'm just wasting my time and it angers me. WOOOO SAAAA.

You stand by counselling a pilot to disregard the law? Is that correct?

" CTAISB Act Quotes..... ( http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... lText.html )

(9) An investigator who is investigating a transportation occurrence may
(a) (i) by notice in writing signed by the investigator, require the person to produce the information to the investigator or to attend before the investigator and give a statement referred to in section 30, under oath or solemn affirmation if required by the investigator."

Pretty clear it is NOT optional to cooperate.

"(10) No person shall refuse or fail to produce information to an investigator, or to attend before an investigator and give a statement, in accordance with a requirement imposed under paragraph (9)(a), or to provide information in accordance with a requirement imposed under paragraph (9)(c)"

[tps8903]

I've deleted my original post. I stand by my post, however have no interest in engaging with a troll online. I love debating, but when people start commenting on where I live and how smart I think I am, well I'm just wasting my time and it angers me. WOOOO SAAAA.

You stand by counselling a pilot to disregard the law? Is that correct?

" CTAISB Act Quotes..... ( http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... lText.html )

(9) An investigator who is investigating a transportation occurrence may
(a) (i) by notice in writing signed by the investigator, require the person to produce the information to the investigator or to attend before the investigator and give a statement referred to in section 30, under oath or solemn affirmation if required by the investigator."

Pretty clear it is NOT optional to cooperate.

"(10) No person shall refuse or fail to produce information to an investigator, or to attend before an investigator and give a statement, in accordance with a requirement imposed under paragraph (9)(a), or to provide information in accordance with a requirement imposed under paragraph (9)(c)"

I stand by the fact that you are guaranteed the right to silence in this country. The Charter is the Supreme law of this country.

I did not counsel any one to disregard a law.

[rookiepilot]

TPS,

That position in my opinion may imperil the safety of others.

Individual rights in aviation, or any position of high public trust or position of safety, are totally subservient to the rights of the public.

And that is what the law, rightly, is saying.

[Loner]

I've deleted my original post. I stand by my post, however have no interest in engaging with a troll online. I love debating, but when people start commenting on where I live and how smart I think I am, well I'm just wasting my time and it angers me. WOOOO SAAAA.

You stand by counselling a pilot to disregard the law? Is that correct?

" CTAISB Act Quotes..... ( http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... lText.html )

(9) An investigator who is investigating a transportation occurrence may
(a) (i) by notice in writing signed by the investigator, require the person to produce the information to the investigator or to attend before the investigator and give a statement referred to in section 30, under oath or solemn affirmation if required by the investigator."

Pretty clear it is NOT optional to cooperate.

"(10) No person shall refuse or fail to produce information to an investigator, or to attend before an investigator and give a statement, in accordance with a requirement imposed under paragraph (9)(a), or to provide information in accordance with a requirement imposed under paragraph (9)(c)"

I stand by the fact that you are guaranteed the right to silence in this country. The Charter is the Supreme law of this country.

I did not counsel any one to disregard a law.

TPS...Is this the kind of moral and ethics you have been taught as a kid? Do you consider yourself as someone with integrity?

[bald seagull]

So I decided to look up the ATR-42-320 numbers, because I've never flown one (used 'basic')......

- MTOW: 36,817 lbs

- Operational Empty Weight = 24,030 lbs (typical in service)
- Max Fuel Load = 9,921 lbs
- 22 pax x 188 lbs (avg male / female even split) = 4,136 lbs

Takeoff weight no cargo or luggage = 38,087 (1,270 lbs over MTOW)

Takeoff distance @ MTOW - ISA - SL = 3,953
Fond du Lac runway length = 3,805

Will be interested to see what their fuel load was......

As mentioned, I've never flown the aircraft type, so if my numbers are off, jump in those who have flown the type.


http://www.atraircraft.com/products_app ... re2014.pdf

[schnitzel2k3]

...

[schnitzel2k3]

Pretty sure we don't abide by the 5th.

Also pretty sure they didn't depart max fuel.

Good luck to all pleading the 5th.

S.