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 lossDonald wrote: ↑Wed Dec 27, 2017 7:46 pm 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.
Westwind
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
-
- Rank Moderator
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:47 pm
- Location: Straight outta Dundarave...
Re: Westwind
Say, what's that mountain goat doing up here in the mist?
Happiness is V1 at Thompson!
Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.
Happiness is V1 at Thompson!
Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.
Re: Westwind
If it was a partial power loss they would know by now and make it public.
Re: Westwind
Deleted.
Last edited by tps8903 on Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Westwind
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.
Re: Westwind
O.K. if they are large assumptions would you educate me?Both of those are pretty large assumptions.
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?
Re: Westwind
Deleted.
Last edited by tps8903 on Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- rookiepilot
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4410
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm
Re: Westwind
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?
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 8:22 am
Re: Westwind
Not really. CTAISB Act Quotes..... ( http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... lText.html )rookiepilot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:35 pm Wow. A crew involved in a major accident can actually refuse to help investigators learn the cause, as to prevent future accidents?
(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.
Re: Westwind
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.
Re: Westwind
I have not. Fair enough.
- Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: Westwind
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?
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?
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Re: Westwind
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.
- rookiepilot
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4410
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm
Re: Westwind
tps8903 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:49 pm 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)"
Re: Westwind
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.rookiepilot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:24 pmtps8903 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:49 pm 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 did not counsel any one to disregard a law.
- rookiepilot
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4410
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm
Re: Westwind
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.
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.
Re: Westwind
TPS...Is this the kind of moral and ethics you have been taught as a kid? Do you consider yourself as someone with integrity?tps8903 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 7:38 pmI stand by the fact that you are guaranteed the right to silence in this country. The Charter is the Supreme law of this country.rookiepilot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:24 pmtps8903 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:49 pm 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 did not counsel any one to disregard a law.
-
- Rank 2
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 5:59 pm
Re: Westwind
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
- 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
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1456
- Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 11:17 pm
Re: Westwind
...
Last edited by schnitzel2k3 on Thu Dec 28, 2017 8:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- schnitzel2k3
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1456
- Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 11:17 pm
Re: Westwind
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.
Also pretty sure they didn't depart max fuel.
Good luck to all pleading the 5th.
S.