3 dead, 2 uninjured in NWT

[Zaibatsu]

Terrible two days for Fort Simpson based aviation first with the CBD6 crash and a day later, this.
I've long maintained that the 206 is a terribly unsafe design for a float plane. If beaver doors have been redesigned for better egress, this aircraft should not even be allowed in commercial float ops, in my opinion.
My sincere condolences and thoughts go to everyone affected by this very sad and tragic event.

Good day. My name is Brendan Burke and I'm a reporter with News/North based in Yellowknife, NWT. With this forum being a wealth of a knowledge for all things aircraft related, I'm reaching out to you and other experienced posters in an effort to clarify/understand some things related to Thursday's fatal Cessna 206 airplane crash near Nahanni National Park Reserve. First and foremost, I'd like to extend my deepest sympathies to the victims and their families.

As you can imagine with the investigation being in its infancy, little information is coming out by way of NWT RCMP and the Transportation Board of Canada. That said, I've learned this morning that the plane crashed during a route landing at Little Doctor Lake (a theory made by a poster above that can now be confirmed).

Here's an excerpt from this morning's update:

"The Cessna 206 airplane involved in Thursday’s fatal accident that claimed the lives of three tourists was landing when it crashed near Nahanni National Park Reserve, says Ted Grant, owner of the flightseeing aircraft company Simpson Air.
Five people were on board the plane when it went down at Little Doctor Lake just after 6:30 p.m. Three tourists – two people from Saskatchewan and another from Alberta – were killed in the crash. A female pilot and a female passenger survived. The two women were uninjured in the crash.
“(The passengers were on) a day tour of the Nahanni National Park. They’d already been to Virginia Falls and spent a couple hours touring at the falls and then they were on their way back here to (Fort) Simpson,” Grant told News/North Monday.
“Normally we do a stop there at Little Doctor Lake for 20 minutes or half an hour and that’s where the airplane was landing when the incident happened,” he said.

When you hear that two people, a pilot and a passenger, left the crash unharmed while three others perished, what immediately comes to mind as how that could have happened? The plane is clearly a tiny aircraft, and I've been told the deaths could have arisen from where the passengers were positioned inside the plane.

In short, to fill in blanks for our readers and paint a picture as to what could have occurred, what do you think likely happened to the the plane and its passengers when it crashed on landing? Could the aircraft have been inverted on impact, etc.? Any fact and experience-based responses/theories/scenarios would be greatly appreciated.

I cannot thank you enough and look forward to hopefully speaking with you further.

Regards,

Brendan

Unlike others, I'm willing to speculate. Not because I think this is what happened in the crash, but because of a known safety issue with floatplanes and one that is particularly bad with the Cessna 206 in general.

I'm not sure if it is the majority, but many deaths in sea plane accidents occur because of drowning. Often the crash or impact is survivable and the occupants are uninjured or have minor injuries and are conscious. This is whether the plane is right side up, upside down, sideways, etc other than an extreme crash which results in cartwheeling or aircraft breakup.

The passengers have to find and don their life vests, undo their seat belts, open the door against water pressure unless the aircraft cabin is completely filled, and inflate their life vest. They must also do this in the correct order (which isn't the one I gave you) often in the dark, under water, and holding their breath.

The success of doing this depends entirely on a thorough safety briefing that is not only given, but understood and retained. The difficulty of water egress is so acute that many float organizations put their pilots through the 'dunk tank', a device which simulates a water ditching in a safe (pool) environment.

The Cessna 206. In its typical form has two doors. One is at the left front of the cabin and opens like most light aircraft doors. Hinged at the front and latched at the rear. The other door is a cargo door which at the right rear of the cabin. This door is a double door, the forward one is hinged forward and latched to the rear door, the rear door is hinged aft and latched to the top and bottom of the door opening.

Like most double doors, you have to open the one that is latched to the other door first. However, on the Cessna 206, if the flaps are down, the front door will not open all the way. You can open the back door now, but its handle which is mounted on the front edge of the door will swing forward and impact the jammed forward door. To get it further open you either have to kick the door to break the handle, or retract the handle after the latches are clear. It still needs to be pushed past the forward door, against water pressure as well, to open. If the accident happens on landing, it's likely the flaps will be in the fully extended position.

It is for this reason that the Cessna 206 is only allowed to carry four passengers (five occupants in total) in Canada, whether as a land plane or sea plane. Some Cessna 206s are modified with a half sized front right hand door to give another exit point, but many aren't.

In a situation involving a crash landing on water, the pilot is right next to an exit and will easily egress. The front passenger can exit out of the optional right door if installed, or slide over the pilot's seat to the left door. The middle row passengers must climb over the front seat backs to reach the front door, or over the middle seat backs to reach the rear door. (Though the front half of the rear door is right next to the middle row passengers, it is jammed by the flap). The sole passenger in the rear seat must climb over two seat backs to get to the front door, or perform the complex procedure as described above to open the rear door. Based on personal experience, few people can open the rear door even on dry land after given a through safety briefing their first attempt.

Though I'm probably going to get flamed by the holier than thous on here, it speaks to a well known problem in the float industry, and a deadly feature of this specific aircraft.

After a crash and drowning deaths of passengers, the DHC-2 Beaver was required to be modified with passenger doors that were easier to open underwater. The doors on the Beaver are much simpler, much larger, are shaped so that they cannot impact the wing flaps in any position, and they are on each side of the aft cabin.

Again, I'm not saying that's what happened here, but it highlights a danger that is being ignored.

[cncpc]

Terrible two days for Fort Simpson based aviation first with the CBD6 crash and a day later, this.
I've long maintained that the 206 is a terribly unsafe design for a float plane. If beaver doors have been redesigned for better egress, this aircraft should not even be allowed in commercial float ops, in my opinion.
My sincere condolences and thoughts go to everyone affected by this very sad and tragic event.

Good day. My name is Brendan Burke and I'm a reporter with News/North based in Yellowknife, NWT. With this forum being a wealth of a knowledge for all things aircraft related, I'm reaching out to you and other experienced posters in an effort to clarify/understand some things related to Thursday's fatal Cessna 206 airplane crash near Nahanni National Park Reserve. First and foremost, I'd like to extend my deepest sympathies to the victims and their families.

As you can imagine with the investigation being in its infancy, little information is coming out by way of NWT RCMP and the Transportation Board of Canada. That said, I've learned this morning that the plane crashed during a route landing at Little Doctor Lake (a theory made by a poster above that can now be confirmed).

Here's an excerpt from this morning's update:

"The Cessna 206 airplane involved in Thursday’s fatal accident that claimed the lives of three tourists was landing when it crashed near Nahanni National Park Reserve, says Ted Grant, owner of the flightseeing aircraft company Simpson Air.
Five people were on board the plane when it went down at Little Doctor Lake just after 6:30 p.m. Three tourists – two people from Saskatchewan and another from Alberta – were killed in the crash. A female pilot and a female passenger survived. The two women were uninjured in the crash.
“(The passengers were on) a day tour of the Nahanni National Park. They’d already been to Virginia Falls and spent a couple hours touring at the falls and then they were on their way back here to (Fort) Simpson,” Grant told News/North Monday.
“Normally we do a stop there at Little Doctor Lake for 20 minutes or half an hour and that’s where the airplane was landing when the incident happened,” he said.

When you hear that two people, a pilot and a passenger, left the crash unharmed while three others perished, what immediately comes to mind as how that could have happened? The plane is clearly a tiny aircraft, and I've been told the deaths could have arisen from where the passengers were positioned inside the plane.

In short, to fill in blanks for our readers and paint a picture as to what could have occurred, what do you think likely happened to the the plane and its passengers when it crashed on landing? Could the aircraft have been inverted on impact, etc.? Any fact and experience-based responses/theories/scenarios would be greatly appreciated.

I cannot thank you enough and look forward to hopefully speaking with you further.

Regards,

Brendan

Unlike others, I'm willing to speculate. Not because I think this is what happened in the crash, but because of a known safety issue with floatplanes and one that is particularly bad with the Cessna 206 in general.

I'm not sure if it is the majority, but many deaths in sea plane accidents occur because of drowning. Often the crash or impact is survivable and the occupants are uninjured or have minor injuries and are conscious. This is whether the plane is right side up, upside down, sideways, etc other than an extreme crash which results in cartwheeling or aircraft breakup.

The passengers have to find and don their life vests, undo their seat belts, open the door against water pressure unless the aircraft cabin is completely filled, and inflate their life vest. They must also do this in the correct order (which isn't the one I gave you) often in the dark, under water, and holding their breath.

The success of doing this depends entirely on a thorough safety briefing that is not only given, but understood and retained. The difficulty of water egress is so acute that many float organizations put their pilots through the 'dunk tank', a device which simulates a water ditching in a safe (pool) environment.

The Cessna 206. In its typical form has two doors. One is at the left front of the cabin and opens like most light aircraft doors. Hinged at the front and latched at the rear. The other door is a cargo door which at the right rear of the cabin. This door is a double door, the forward one is hinged forward and latched to the rear door, the rear door is hinged aft and latched to the top and bottom of the door opening.

Like most double doors, you have to open the one that is latched to the other door first. However, on the Cessna 206, if the flaps are down, the front door will not open all the way. You can open the back door now, but its handle which is mounted on the front edge of the door will swing forward and impact the jammed forward door. To get it further open you either have to kick the door to break the handle, or retract the handle after the latches are clear. It still needs to be pushed past the forward door, against water pressure as well, to open. If the accident happens on landing, it's likely the flaps will be in the fully extended position.

It is for this reason that the Cessna 206 is only allowed to carry four passengers (five occupants in total) in Canada, whether as a land plane or sea plane. Some Cessna 206s are modified with a half sized front right hand door to give another exit point, but many aren't.

In a situation involving a crash landing on water, the pilot is right next to an exit and will easily egress. The front passenger can exit out of the optional right door if installed, or slide over the pilot's seat to the left door. The middle row passengers must climb over the front seat backs to reach the front door, or over the rear seat backs to reach the rear door. (Though the front half of the rear door is right next to the middle row passengers, it is jammed by the flap). The sole passenger in the rear seat must climb over two seat backs to get to the front door, or perform the complex procedure as described above to open the rear door. Based on personal experience, few people can open the rear door even on dry land after given a through safety briefing their first attempt.

Though I'm probably going to get flamed by the holier than thous on here, it speaks to a well known problem in the float industry, and a deadly feature of this specific aircraft.

After a crash and drowning deaths of passengers, the DHC-2 Beaver was required to be modified with passenger doors that were easier to open underwater. The doors on the Beaver are much simpler, much larger, are shaped so that they cannot impact the wing flaps in any position, and they are on each side of the aft cabin.

Again, I'm not saying that's what happened here, but it highlights a danger that is being ignored.

Good post.

If you read the reporter's one post, he asked for facts and opinions.

"In short, to fill in blanks for our readers and paint a picture as to what could have occurred, what do you think likely happened to the the plane and its passengers when it crashed on landing? Could the aircraft have been inverted on impact, etc.? Any fact and experience-based responses/theories/scenarios would be greatly appreciated. "

[MrWings]

It is for this reason that the Cessna 206 is only allowed to carry four passengers (five occupants in total) in Canada, whether as a land plane or sea plane.

What? How long has this been in place? It's been many years since I've flown a 206 but I never heard of that. Pretty sure I had more than 4 in it one time.

[Zaibatsu]

Well. Only 5 seats, anyways. P206 is excluded, only U206.

[rookiepilot]

Speculate, media.

This hurts the family, with no practical purpose, in my view.

Strongly disagree. Leave the families alone to mourn, in peace, and the government agencies to do their work.

[Zaibatsu]

If it were a loved one of mine, I’d want to know why they are dead. Media is often the driver of investigations and sometimes capable of seeing things even professional investigators don’t.

Back in the 1980s, The Washington Monthly correctly predicted the failure modes of the Shuttle which killed 14 astronauts in two separate accidents. It didn’t infer these issues from its own knowledge. It called upon industry experts to provide this information for them, and with analysis drew the foreboding conclusions.

The flaws of the 206 are well known in the industry. They aren’t well known to the general public. The companies who operate these aircraft do so by putting profits over people.

This crash fits almost perfectly the scenario I described. The only real other way occupants escape with no or minor injuries and others perish is from fire (usually after succumbing to smoke inhalation). Fire doesn’t seem a likely cause in this case.

If it were my loved one, I’d want their death to count for something. Media pressure to make air travel safer seems more than appropriate.

[cncpc]

If it were a loved one of mine, I’d want to know why they are dead. Media is often the driver of investigations and sometimes capable of seeing things even professional investigators don’t.

Back in the 1980s, The Washington Monthly correctly predicted the failure modes of the Shuttle which killed 14 astronauts in two separate accidents. It didn’t infer these issues from its own knowledge. It called upon industry experts to provide this information for them, and with analysis drew the foreboding conclusions.

The flaws of the 206 are well known in the industry. They aren’t well known to the general public. The companies who operate these aircraft do so by putting profits over people.

This crash fits almost perfectly the scenario I described. The only real other way occupants escape with no or minor injuries and others perish is from fire (usually after succumbing to smoke inhalation). Fire doesn’t seem a likely cause in this case.

If it were my loved one, I’d want their death to count for something. Media pressure to make air travel safer seems more than appropriate.

Good post.

Stands in contrast to the type of drivel we see from rookie pilots. Human chihuahuas, yapping for attention.

[trey kule]

Well zaibatsu.

The problem with speculation, is one can get things wrong and confuse the issue.

The 206 , IIRC, on floats, has the flaps restricted, as they are electrically operated and will not retract if the plane is submerged and would make egress from the rear practically impossible.
When Cessna restarted production on the 206,TC restricted the aircraft to 5 seats so that the rear two seats could exit easier. They also required a change in the cargo door release mechanism

The major issues like all float planes are overloading and, on the 206 in particular, the c of g getting to far aft if the rear seats are occupied.

But absolutely none of this may be relevent to this accident.

You say if your family was involved you would want to know everything. That means to me you have never been in the situation. When you read every keyboard commander, media guru, ambulance chasing ghoul talking about your family snd tossing out whatever thoughts pop into their head, I suspect you might think differently.

And posting your condolences does not give anyone, particularily media types the license to then go on and become the backyard gossip.

This was a tragic accident. Three people lost there lives and many more will be effected by it. We have a well trained group from the TSB collecting the facts. Lets let them do their jobs even it means we cant have the instant gratification gossip brings us.

A wise old pilot once posted there are no new causes of aviation accidents. If learning is really the goal there is a huge database of past accidents to learn from.

[HO Driver]

Pilots will always give you their opinion whether asked or NOT, as seen in these forum pages. But, god forbid, if someone from outside the industry asks for their opinion, they bitch about being asked for it!!
I don't get it....
The reporter is just doing his job, his due diligence, settle the F*** down.

[Hockaloogie]

A wise old pilot once posted there are no new causes of aviation accidents.

That wise old pilot was Hedley. But we shall not mention his name here...

[PilotDAR]

I do not know the details of the accident being discussed, and any speculation remains to me. Whether the reporter should be entitled to gather knowledge by asking here is really up to each person's opinion - in my mind both sides have valid points. But the reporter did declare himself, and his intentions, and I can respect that, even if I choose not to offer information.

That said, there is a balance of responsibility, and sometimes there is a gap in the middle. Citizens expect the government to regulate things to be "safe", so they can go about their activities believing that the "safeness" has already bee assured for them. To some degree, TC did take on this role by placing operating limitations on the occupancy of a U206H. Cessna did not like it - tough, Cessna's design did not meet the expectations which TC held on behalf of Canadian citizens.

But citizens have to take some responsibility too. Sadly, they are often not told this - it's too scary to broach the topic. Yes, passenger briefings are a good start, but may be incomplete, or poorly emphasized - 'cause if they were thorough, they would probably scare away passengers and be poor for business. I think back to the "Duck" tour boat which sank in Missouri a month or so ago. I heard it reported that the operator actually told passengers that they did not need to put on life jackets. The passengers should have been wearing the life jackets for the entire trip!! And the sides were covered, apparently restricting exit. When a person gets into something, they really need to confirm and rehearse their getting back out of it - fast, and without assistance! As a passenger, that is always your responsibility. Beyond that may be helping someone else get out. We can't have all marine passengers take the underwater egress course, but it sure would be nice if they all did - there would be many fewer drownings!

Since my being spit into the lake through the windshield last summer (having taken the training, briefed the pilot I was flying with, and wearing my life jacket), my wife has declined water flying with me. She'll fly in the 150 with me, but not the amphib. I kindly asked her her reason. She succinctly said that she was not confident that she could get out of it in the water on her own. You know what... A reasoned, and mature response - taking responsibility for herself, in not exceeding her level of self confidence. Good for her! I would much rather be married, that take her water flying, so no problem. I water fly on my own.

The shuttle occupants were very well trained, and adequately aware of the many risks. Sad, maybe predicted, but not a risk to the public (other than bits of shuttle returning to earth). Airplane passengers of the general public are too casual about the very small chance that it may suddenly all be on them to get out, survive, and maybe help someone else. We, the industry are not helping if we gloss over passenger briefings, and de-emphisize their importance. Every passenger I fly on the water will be wearing a life jacket, briefed on its use, and briefed on exit until I'm satisfied that they understand. I'm responsible for their safety, and when the plane is sinking, I may not be able to help them, so I better have done it all before hand.

[rookiepilot]

Consider this:

You who are in favour of media reporting this event assume they have would do so with altruistic intentions. History repeatedly proves this is not likely the outcome, and you will not likely get the result you're looking for.

I am not a fan because media cherry picks what they will choose to report, and that is based on what sells newspapers. They will not report all of what you might share, nor the correct context. This is why I do not respect the profession.

Education does not sell newspapers. Fear and outrage sell newspapers.

Here's an acid test to the OP. Allow someone willing to quote at length and in factual detail for your article -- to have full editorial control over what is published, so that a product that is fact and educational based and not sensationalist based would be the outcome.

[cncpc]

I do not know the details of the accident being discussed, and any speculation remains to me. Whether the reporter should be entitled to gather knowledge by asking here is really up to each person's opinion - in my mind both sides have valid points. But the reporter did declare himself, and his intentions, and I can respect that, even if I choose not to offer information.

That said, there is a balance of responsibility, and sometimes there is a gap in the middle. Citizens expect the government to regulate things to be "safe", so they can go about their activities believing that the "safeness" has already bee assured for them. To some degree, TC did take on this role by placing operating limitations on the occupancy of a U206H. Cessna did not like it - tough, Cessna's design did not meet the expectations which TC held on behalf of Canadian citizens.

But citizens have to take some responsibility too. Sadly, they are often not told this - it's too scary to broach the topic. Yes, passenger briefings are a good start, but may be incomplete, or poorly emphasized - 'cause if they were thorough, they would probably scare away passengers and be poor for business. I think back to the "Duck" tour boat which sank in Missouri a month or so ago. I heard it reported that the operator actually told passengers that they did not need to put on life jackets. The passengers should have been wearing the life jackets for the entire trip!! And the sides were covered, apparently restricting exit. When a person gets into something, they really need to confirm and rehearse their getting back out of it - fast, and without assistance! As a passenger, that is always your responsibility. Beyond that may be helping someone else get out. We can't have all marine passengers take the underwater egress course, but it sure would be nice if they all did - there would be many fewer drownings!

Since my being spit into the lake through the windshield last summer (having taken the training, briefed the pilot I was flying with, and wearing my life jacket), my wife has declined water flying with me. She'll fly in the 150 with me, but not the amphib. I kindly asked her her reason. She succinctly said that she was not confident that she could get out of it in the water on her own. You know what... A reasoned, and mature response - taking responsibility for herself, in not exceeding her level of self confidence. Good for her! I would much rather be married, that take her water flying, so no problem. I water fly on my own.

The shuttle occupants were very well trained, and adequately aware of the many risks. Sad, maybe predicted, but not a risk to the public (other than bits of shuttle returning to earth). Airplane passengers of the general public are too casual about the very small chance that it may suddenly all be on them to get out, survive, and maybe help someone else. We, the industry are not helping if we gloss over passenger briefings, and de-emphisize their importance. Every passenger I fly on the water will be wearing a life jacket, briefed on its use, and briefed on exit until I'm satisfied that they understand. I'm responsible for their safety, and when the plane is sinking, I may not be able to help them, so I better have done it all before hand.

Brendan Burke...what this guy says.

[co-joe]

To give a little insight into how well known the 206 door issue is with respect to underwater egress, here's the Transport Canada Aviation Safety Letter from february 1998, titled; "Underwater Egress Revisited" a title which suggests that even 20 years ago it was already a well known potential problem.

http://smartpilot.ca/images/article_dow ... 98_02E.pdf

My condolences to the families.

unlatch the forward cargo
door;

open the forward cargo door
as much as possible (about
3 in.) (figures 1 and 2);

unlatch the rear cargo door
by pulling down on the red
handle (figure 2);

partially open the rear door
until the door latch at the
base of the door is clear of
the floor (figure 3);

close the rear cargo door
latch by placing the red
handle into the well in the
door jamb (the locking pins
will now be extended, but
clear of the fuselage); and
push open the rear cargo
door

Now this procedure
is quite demanding for most
people under normal circum-
stances. Picture the process in
the dark, in an inverted air-
plane, in rushing water and with
two or three distressed pas-
sengers trying to escape

Now to be clear, Mr reporter sir, nobody is saying that this is what happened, just that this is a known problem with this particular accident aircraft. The TSB is well aware of this and will let us know if this was a factor.

[cncpc]

To give a little insight into how well known the 206 door issue is with respect to underwater egress, here's the Transport Canada Aviation Safety Letter from february 1998, titled; "Underwater Egress Revisited" a title which suggests that even 20 years ago it was already a well known potential problem.

http://smartpilot.ca/images/article_dow ... 98_02E.pdf

My condolences to the families.

unlatch the forward cargo
door;

open the forward cargo door
as much as possible (about
3 in.) (figures 1 and 2);

unlatch the rear cargo door
by pulling down on the red
handle (figure 2);

partially open the rear door
until the door latch at the
base of the door is clear of
the floor (figure 3);

close the rear cargo door
latch by placing the red
handle into the well in the
door jamb (the locking pins
will now be extended, but
clear of the fuselage); and
push open the rear cargo
door

Now this procedure
is quite demanding for most
people under normal circum-
stances. Picture the process in
the dark, in an inverted air-
plane, in rushing water and with
two or three distressed pas-
sengers trying to escape

Now to be clear, Mr reporter sir, nobody is saying that this is what happened, just that this is a known problem with this particular accident aircraft. The TSB is well aware of this and will let us know if this was a factor.

Brendan Burke...and this guy.

[rookiepilot]

Here, CNPC, a job opening for you up there.

https://ca.indeed.com/m/viewjob?jk=ad12 ... erritories

Right up your alley being so dazzled by the media.

Write your own story.

[Bede]

Terrible two days for Fort Simpson based aviation first with the CBD6 crash and a day later, this.
I've long maintained that the 206 is a terribly unsafe design for a float plane. If beaver doors have been redesigned for better egress, this aircraft should not even be allowed in commercial float ops, in my opinion.
My sincere condolences and thoughts go to everyone affected by this very sad and tragic event.

Good day. My name is Brendan Burke and I'm a reporter with News/North based in Yellowknife, NWT. With this forum being a wealth of a knowledge for all things aircraft related, I'm reaching out to you and other experienced posters in an effort to clarify/understand some things related to Thursday's fatal Cessna 206 airplane crash near Nahanni National Park Reserve. First and foremost, I'd like to extend my deepest sympathies to the victims and their families.

As you can imagine with the investigation being in its infancy, little information is coming out by way of NWT RCMP and the Transportation Board of Canada. That said, I've learned this morning that the plane crashed during a route landing at Little Doctor Lake (a theory made by a poster above that can now be confirmed).

Here's an excerpt from this morning's update:

"The Cessna 206 airplane involved in Thursday’s fatal accident that claimed the lives of three tourists was landing when it crashed near Nahanni National Park Reserve, says Ted Grant, owner of the flightseeing aircraft company Simpson Air.
Five people were on board the plane when it went down at Little Doctor Lake just after 6:30 p.m. Three tourists – two people from Saskatchewan and another from Alberta – were killed in the crash. A female pilot and a female passenger survived. The two women were uninjured in the crash.
“(The passengers were on) a day tour of the Nahanni National Park. They’d already been to Virginia Falls and spent a couple hours touring at the falls and then they were on their way back here to (Fort) Simpson,” Grant told News/North Monday.
“Normally we do a stop there at Little Doctor Lake for 20 minutes or half an hour and that’s where the airplane was landing when the incident happened,” he said.

When you hear that two people, a pilot and a passenger, left the crash unharmed while three others perished, what immediately comes to mind as how that could have happened? The plane is clearly a tiny aircraft, and I've been told the deaths could have arisen from where the passengers were positioned inside the plane.

In short, to fill in blanks for our readers and paint a picture as to what could have occurred, what do you think likely happened to the the plane and its passengers when it crashed on landing? Could the aircraft have been inverted on impact, etc.? Any fact and experience-based responses/theories/scenarios would be greatly appreciated.

I cannot thank you enough and look forward to hopefully speaking with you further.

Regards,

Brendan

Hi Brendan,

The last time that I spoke with one of your reporters (Yes News North) was probably 15-20 years ago. We had a plane go missing, but it ended happily, a mere diversion in the arctic due to bad wx and the pilot wanted to conserve fuel and sit out the weather. Your reporters massively twisted my words turning a text book example of good decision making into a sensationalist cover story claiming that the pilot ran out of fuel. I will never speak to a reporter again. I also provide this counsel to younger pilots.

[PilotDAR]

Your reporters massively twisted my words turning a text book example of good decision making into a sensationalist cover story

Yes, I've had similar experience, and it has made me wary of providing information to reporters. If I felt that a reporter would accurately report the facts, and not sensationalize and disfavour the pilot, I'd be more willing to provide information. That confidence is not there for me.

[rookiepilot]

Your reporters massively twisted my words turning a text book example of good decision making into a sensationalist cover story

Yes, I've had similar experience, and it has made me wary of providing information to reporters. If I felt that a reporter would accurately report the facts, and not sensationalize and disfavour the pilot, I'd be more willing to provide information. That confidence is not there for me.

This has also been my observation.

[C.W.E.]

As far as I can determine there has been no public release of what caused this accident or if it sank upside down or any other details.

As to the safety issue with that arplane I do have some personal knowledge of them as I flew a TU206 on Wipline amphibs. for a logging company for about 800 hours and we restricted it to four occupants when operating on the water due to the difficulty of getting out of it should it end up upside down in the water.

I personally would not operate one in a commercial operation.