King Air at Gillam, MB

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

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

Locked
Donald
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2174
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:34 am
Location: Canada

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by Donald »

trey kule wrote: Tue May 07, 2019 10:01 am So, to treat this as the learning experience so many say come as a result of speculation.

I could be wrong about this, but I do not think this is the first time a pilot or crew has departed with insufficient fuel and it has ended badly.
I have to ask. How many posters here had to read about this to conclude that one should depart with sufficient fuel.? Or need to be reminded about it!
The learning point is, how do you react when you discover your error?

Do you bypass a diversion airport in the hopes that you can make destination on fumes and not have to admit your error? (Low probability of success, but a desired outcome, common pilot choice)

Or do you divert, gas up, confess your error and take a delay as well as possible punishment? (High probability of success, but with consequences, uncommon pilot choice)
---------- ADS -----------
 
digits_
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3190
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by digits_ »

trey kule wrote: Tue May 07, 2019 11:52 am
To recap....Did you really need this accident to learn to take sufficient fuel?
Or to remind you of the importance of fuel?
Nope.
trey kule wrote: Tue May 07, 2019 11:52 am My thoughts is if you did , aviation is not a profession for you.
Are you sure it is a profession for you? Some basic logic and reasoning skills is nice to have in a cockpit.

The learning factor comes into play when learning about possible scenarios. Questions that have been discussed here are: can a fuel leak in a king air lead to a dual engine failure? Can you burn off the mains while still having fuel in the aux tanks? I found some of the replies to be pretty interesting.

You act as if the final cause invalidates the whole discussion. It doesn't. For the purposes of education, the actual cause is of minor importance.


trey kule wrote: Tue May 07, 2019 11:52 am
I give Doc a pass on speculation. Two inop engines is pretty much a no brainer as to cause.
A fuel issue. Contaminated or not there.
He simply was stating the rather obvious.
It is telling how so many are in such a rush to speculate....”to learn” of course.
Doc was the first to speculate. So which is it: speculation is good, or speculation is bad?
And taking off without fuel vs taking off with contaminated fuel is a huge difference in how the pilots are depicted. Stating with absolute certainty that they took off without fuel without any confirmed information was just presumptuous.
trey kule wrote: Tue May 07, 2019 11:52 am There have always been “that guy” wanting to show how clever they were by speculating. Butthe internet has made it possible for them to group together rather than behind the hangar.
It saddens me that so many simply go on and on without the facts.
I'd take a "that guy" coming up with alternative theories and clearly mentioning that it is just a theory over the guy who claims to know what happens without any facts any day.
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Illya Kuryakin
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1311
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 11:14 pm
Location: The Gulag Archipelago

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by Illya Kuryakin »

Donald wrote: Tue May 07, 2019 1:14 pm
trey kule wrote: Tue May 07, 2019 10:01 am So, to treat this as the learning experience so many say come as a result of speculation.

I could be wrong about this, but I do not think this is the first time a pilot or crew has departed with insufficient fuel and it has ended badly.
I have to ask. How many posters here had to read about this to conclude that one should depart with sufficient fuel.? Or need to be reminded about it!
The learning point is, how do you react when you discover your error?

Do you bypass a diversion airport in the hopes that you can make destination on fumes and not have to admit your error? (Low probability of success, but a desired outcome, common pilot choice)

Or do you divert, gas up, confess your error and take a delay as well as possible punishment? (High probability of success, but with consequences, uncommon pilot choice)
Thank you Donald. Hope everyone got that. You're running out of gas. It's YOUR fault because you didn't uplift any. Me? Hell, I'd land ASAP and the beers on me. Push on....maybe you'll make it?

Yup. I was the first to speculate. I enjoy stirring it up. But.....I'm right more often than not. Two PT6s quit......yup, it's fuel.
Illya
---------- ADS -----------
 
Wish I didn't know now, what I didn't know then.
goingnowherefast
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1866
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by goingnowherefast »

What baffles me is they made it quite far before realizing the problem. I'd have figured fuel calculations would be in the cruise check at top of climb or something. Well within range of going back to YWG for fuel. King Air fuel gauges aren't perfect, but they're not that far off.

Did it really take them over an hour to find out they were short gas? Maybe both fuel gauges MEL'd?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Daniel Cooper
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:38 am
Location: Unknown

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by Daniel Cooper »

Illya Kuryakin wrote: Tue May 07, 2019 9:33 am I’ve done one or two medevacs......aircraft was always filled after a trip. Immediately after.
Why not here?
First hole in a Swiss cheese model right there.
---------- ADS -----------
 
corethatthermal
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by corethatthermal »

The learning point is, how do you react when you discover your error?

Do you bypass a diversion airport in the hopes that you can make destination on fumes and not have to admit your error? (Low probability of success, but a desired outcome, common pilot choice)

Or do you divert, gas up, confess your error and take a delay as well as possible punishment? (High probability of success, but with consequences, uncommon pilot choice)
That pretty well sums it up! They likely flew over 20 miles of LANDABLE lake ice and dragged it in ( Instead of coming in high and circling so that they would have options ) only to finally do injustice to the A/C,,,, Comedy of errors I say! Perhaps someone can ask a few locals HOW good the lake ice was for landing. I bet if you touched down and left no imprint on the ice, it would be fine for landing!
---------- ADS -----------
 
Illya Kuryakin
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1311
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 11:14 pm
Location: The Gulag Archipelago

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by Illya Kuryakin »

corethatthermal wrote: Tue May 07, 2019 8:12 pm
The learning point is, how do you react when you discover your error?

Do you bypass a diversion airport in the hopes that you can make destination on fumes and not have to admit your error? (Low probability of success, but a desired outcome, common pilot choice)

Or do you divert, gas up, confess your error and take a delay as well as possible punishment? (High probability of success, but with consequences, uncommon pilot choice)
That pretty well sums it up! They likely flew over 20 miles of LANDABLE lake ice and dragged it in ( Instead of coming in high and circling so that they would have options ) only to finally do injustice to the A/C,,,, Comedy of errors I say! Perhaps someone can ask a few locals HOW good the lake ice was for landing. I bet if you touched down and left no imprint on the ice, it would be fine for landing!
A comedy of errors? Where exactly is the COMEDY here? Two pilots hopped into an aircraft with insufficient fuel to make the trip. Pretty basic here kids.....do we got gas?..and off they go, risking every life on board.....comedy of errors my ass. If you're one of the people in the back of this airplane....and you're reading this....call a lawyer. It's called criminal negligence. You could easily have died here.
Illya
---------- ADS -----------
 
Wish I didn't know now, what I didn't know then.
PT6A
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2018 8:46 am

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by PT6A »

Illya Kuryakin wrote: Tue May 07, 2019 8:27 pm
corethatthermal wrote: Tue May 07, 2019 8:12 pm
The learning point is, how do you react when you discover your error?

Do you bypass a diversion airport in the hopes that you can make destination on fumes and not have to admit your error? (Low probability of success, but a desired outcome, common pilot choice)

Or do you divert, gas up, confess your error and take a delay as well as possible punishment? (High probability of success, but with consequences, uncommon pilot choice)
That pretty well sums it up! They likely flew over 20 miles of LANDABLE lake ice and dragged it in ( Instead of coming in high and circling so that they would have options ) only to finally do injustice to the A/C,,,, Comedy of errors I say! Perhaps someone can ask a few locals HOW good the lake ice was for landing. I bet if you touched down and left no imprint on the ice, it would be fine for landing!
A comedy of errors? Where exactly is the COMEDY here? Two pilots hopped into an aircraft with insufficient fuel to make the trip. Pretty basic here kids.....do we got gas?..and off they go, risking every life on board.....comedy of errors my ass. If you're one of the people in the back of this airplane....and you're reading this....call a lawyer. It's called criminal negligence. You could easily have died here.
Illya
To top it off, two pilots jumped in and it was two Captains flying together.
---------- ADS -----------
 
C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by C.W.E. »

To top it off, two pilots jumped in and it was two Captains flying together.
A couple more candidates for T.C. to hire.
---------- ADS -----------
 
mmm..bacon
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 7:19 pm

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by mmm..bacon »

Maybe they both thought that it was the f/o’s job to check the fuel? :rolleyes:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Everything has an end, except a sausage, which has two!
User avatar
Daniel Cooper
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:38 am
Location: Unknown

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by Daniel Cooper »

PT6A wrote: Wed May 08, 2019 6:22 am To top it off, two pilots jumped in and it was two Captains flying together.
The second hole in the cheese.
---------- ADS -----------
 
C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by C.W.E. »

The second hole in the cheese.
How many holes does it require to be incompetent enough to finally wreck an airplane?

They didn't teach me about cheese when I learned to fly.
---------- ADS -----------
 
digits_
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3190
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by digits_ »

2 captains? Hmmm.... Looks like we are about to find out how severe this pilot shortage is....
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Crsaviation
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 8:50 am

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by Crsaviation »

PT6A wrote: Wed May 08, 2019 6:22 am
Illya Kuryakin wrote: Tue May 07, 2019 8:27 pm
corethatthermal wrote: Tue May 07, 2019 8:12 pm

That pretty well sums it up! They likely flew over 20 miles of LANDABLE lake ice and dragged it in ( Instead of coming in high and circling so that they would have options ) only to finally do injustice to the A/C,,,, Comedy of errors I say! Perhaps someone can ask a few locals HOW good the lake ice was for landing. I bet if you touched down and left no imprint on the ice, it would be fine for landing!
A comedy of errors? Where exactly is the COMEDY here? Two pilots hopped into an aircraft with insufficient fuel to make the trip. Pretty basic here kids.....do we got gas?..and off they go, risking every life on board.....comedy of errors my ass. If you're one of the people in the back of this airplane....and you're reading this....call a lawyer. It's called criminal negligence. You could easily have died here.
Illya
To top it off, two pilots jumped in and it was two Captains flying together.
How do you know who the crew is? I can't find any disclosures on the crew
---------- ADS -----------
 
shimmydampner
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1677
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:59 pm

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by shimmydampner »

It's all well and good to sit here with a smug sense of self satisfaction about correctly predicting what was a likely and obvious cause of this accident but I for one still have questions. Regardless of .'s pooh-poohing of the Swiss cheese idea, and Ilya's insistence that you don't need an accident like this to learn that departing with insufficient fuel is a very bad idea (fair point), I think there could potentially be other more subtle but still important lessons to be learned. For instance, if it's true it was two captains flying together, was it normal for FOs to deal with refueling and complacency made neither of them think about it? Did just blindly regurgitating checklists by rote cause them to not actually look at what they were meant to be checking when the inevitable bit about fuel quantity came along? Were the fuel indicators working properly? Did the fuel guy screw something up? Was there some sort of weird company culture at play here? At what point in the flight did they realize they were in trouble? Was it top of climb during fuel checks or were they too complacent to do those and didn't realize until much later? When they did realize, did they not have other options or did they do some math and think they'd be able to just squeeze it in and save the embarrassment? Could they have diverted? Could they have tried long range cruise? Could they have gone to an extreme of shutting one down in cruise to save fuel if there were no diversion options?
This accident is more interesting to me beyond just the simple reason there was a dual flameout. That part is elementary. I'm much more curious to know how two presumably qualified pilots ended up in this situation. I don't get any satisfaction out of their public flagellation by the crowd here, and I don't believe that writing it off as simply a case of "look how stupid these guys were" is the best we can do as professional aviators. Surely we're capable of more imaginative and nuanced thinking. Like the saying goes: learn from the mistakes of others as you'll not live long enough to make them all yourself. Dumbing this down to just one mistake of "departed with insufficient fuel" doesn't allow for real examination of the likely many little mistakes before and after the wheels came up that ended with a 200 balled up on a runway in northern Manitoba.
---------- ADS -----------
 
C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by C.W.E. »

Well maybe I do not think in the Swiss cheese mode of accident prevention but I do believe in never flying an airplane ahead of where I want it to go.

That is accomplished by decision making based on my and the airplanes limitations.

Win lose or draw for me it has worked for the past sixty six years and over thirty thousand hours of flying accident and regulatory violations free.

If that is a
smug sense of self satisfaction
so be it.
---------- ADS -----------
 
corethatthermal
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by corethatthermal »

This accident is more interesting to me beyond just the simple reason there was a dual flameout.
I think we ALL would love to read a small book that would answer all your questions!

Will TC provide us with all we request? Not a chance!

Will the pilots offer all the information to a journalist for the sake of all of us? Not a chance!

Will they lawyer up?

The bits and pieces will come through word of mouth, filtered by biases and fear of exposure.

In the absence of transparency and an industry that is heading towards a legalistic 3rd world environment, please forgive us little pee-ons for being a little absent in the altruism department!

Just look at what i did ( throwing out possible landing options ) and I get thoroughly flamed for it!
---------- ADS -----------
 
digits_
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3190
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by digits_ »

shimmydampner wrote: Wed May 08, 2019 5:51 pm It's all well and good to sit here with a smug sense of self satisfaction about correctly predicting what was a likely and obvious cause of this accident but I for one still have questions. Regardless of .'s pooh-poohing of the Swiss cheese idea, and Ilya's insistence that you don't need an accident like this to learn that departing with insufficient fuel is a very bad idea (fair point), I think there could potentially be other more subtle but still important lessons to be learned. For instance, if it's true it was two captains flying together, was it normal for FOs to deal with refueling and complacency made neither of them think about it? Did just blindly regurgitating checklists by rote cause them to not actually look at what they were meant to be checking when the inevitable bit about fuel quantity came along? Were the fuel indicators working properly? Did the fuel guy screw something up? Was there some sort of weird company culture at play here? At what point in the flight did they realize they were in trouble? Was it top of climb during fuel checks or were they too complacent to do those and didn't realize until much later? When they did realize, did they not have other options or did they do some math and think they'd be able to just squeeze it in and save the embarrassment? Could they have diverted? Could they have tried long range cruise? Could they have gone to an extreme of shutting one down in cruise to save fuel if there were no diversion options?
This accident is more interesting to me beyond just the simple reason there was a dual flameout. That part is elementary. I'm much more curious to know how two presumably qualified pilots ended up in this situation. I don't get any satisfaction out of their public flagellation by the crowd here, and I don't believe that writing it off as simply a case of "look how stupid these guys were" is the best we can do as professional aviators. Surely we're capable of more imaginative and nuanced thinking. Like the saying goes: learn from the mistakes of others as you'll not live long enough to make them all yourself. Dumbing this down to just one mistake of "departed with insufficient fuel" doesn't allow for real examination of the likely many little mistakes before and after the wheels came up that ended with a 200 balled up on a runway in northern Manitoba.
Agreed!
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by C.W.E. »

Will they lawyer up?
There is a reasonable chance they may have to.

I know for sure if me or any of my family were a passenger on that airplane they would need a lawyer.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Illya Kuryakin
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1311
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 11:14 pm
Location: The Gulag Archipelago

Re: King Air at Gillam, MB

Post by Illya Kuryakin »

shimmydampner wrote: Wed May 08, 2019 5:51 pm It's all well and good to sit here with a smug sense of self satisfaction about correctly predicting what was a likely and obvious cause of this accident but I for one still have questions. Regardless of .'s pooh-poohing of the Swiss cheese idea, and Ilya's insistence that you don't need an accident like this to learn that departing with insufficient fuel is a very bad idea (fair point), I think there could potentially be other more subtle but still important lessons to be learned. For instance, if it's true it was two captains flying together, was it normal for FOs to deal with refueling and complacency made neither of them think about it? Did just blindly regurgitating checklists by rote cause them to not actually look at what they were meant to be checking when the inevitable bit about fuel quantity came along? Were the fuel indicators working properly? Did the fuel guy screw something up? Was there some sort of weird company culture at play here? At what point in the flight did they realize they were in trouble? Was it top of climb during fuel checks or were they too complacent to do those and didn't realize until much later? When they did realize, did they not have other options or did they do some math and think they'd be able to just squeeze it in and save the embarrassment? Could they have diverted? Could they have tried long range cruise? Could they have gone to an extreme of shutting one down in cruise to save fuel if there were no diversion options?
This accident is more interesting to me beyond just the simple reason there was a dual flameout. That part is elementary. I'm much more curious to know how two presumably qualified pilots ended up in this situation. I don't get any satisfaction out of their public flagellation by the crowd here, and I don't believe that writing it off as simply a case of "look how stupid these guys were" is the best we can do as professional aviators. Surely we're capable of more imaginative and nuanced thinking. Like the saying goes: learn from the mistakes of others as you'll not live long enough to make them all yourself. Dumbing this down to just one mistake of "departed with insufficient fuel" doesn't allow for real examination of the likely many little mistakes before and after the wheels came up that ended with a 200 balled up on a runway in northern Manitoba.
Wow. I'm impressed. Look at all the writing old Shimmy did here. My my. How positively eloquent. But, when the dog and pony show comes to a close, you have two (Captains?) pilots who threw the saddle on the horse and rode off into the sunset before the horse was fed. These guys (Swiss cheese or not) need to be unemployed, and probably sued.
Shimmy....just between us girls.....professional pilots don't run out of gas. At least, not because they didn't check.
Illya.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Wish I didn't know now, what I didn't know then.
Locked

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”