Has anyone heard of a Navajo that had a prop strike with the ground while on approach to Poplar Hill, Ontario on 21 November, 2007.
Apparently the a/c managed to stay in the air and get back to Red Lake. Supposedly two pax on board and I am presuming everything went OK.
Regards,
carholme
Navajo prop contact with ground on approach
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
Re: Navajo prop contact with ground on approach
"LIFE IS NOT A JOURNEY TO THE GRAVE WITH THE INTENTION OF ARRIVING
SAFELY IN A PRETTY AND WELL PRESERVED BODY, BUT RATHER TO SKID IN BROADSIDE, THOROUGHLY USED UP, TOTALLY WORN OUT, AND LOUDLY PROCLAIMING"
WOW... WHAT A RIDE
SAFELY IN A PRETTY AND WELL PRESERVED BODY, BUT RATHER TO SKID IN BROADSIDE, THOROUGHLY USED UP, TOTALLY WORN OUT, AND LOUDLY PROCLAIMING"
WOW... WHAT A RIDE
Re: Navajo prop contact with ground on approach
I remember that, it was a chieftain from Bolton Lake Air Service, which now operates under a different name. I used to work there while it was operating under that name. The aircraft was on final and had forgotten the gear, realized in the flare what was going on and went around. During the go-around, the prop hit. Poplar Hill was a cruddy place to take a full chieftain in and out of on a hot day. I seem to remember it being somewhere in the range of 2000-2200' ? Maybe a little longer.
Cheers,
PP
Cheers,
PP
Some people are like slinkies: Not much good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.
-
PopnChipper
- Rank 2
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:42 am
Re: Navajo prop contact with ground on approach
You might be thinking of Poplar River in Manitoba. This incident occured in Poplar Hill Ontario. Poplar River is a real pain in the ass with a chieftain in the summer, 2500 ft, Poplar Hill though is much better, 3500 ft, from most of my experience is reasonably well maintained. PnC
Re: Navajo prop contact with ground on approach
Looks like it was a Superior machine. Glad everyone was ok.
The Piper PA31 –350 operated by Superior Airways Ltd. departed Pikangikum On (CYPM) for Polar Hill On (CPV7) with 1 crew and 4 passengers on board. The aircraft attempted a landing on runway 31 at CPV7 with the landing gear in the retracted (up) position. During the landing flare the propellers made contact with the runway surface. The pilot executed a missed approach and flew the aircraft to Red Lake (CYRL) 65 NM to the Southeast. Both propellers sustained damage and are slightly bent; they have been sent to a repair facility for assessment and repair. The aircraft was equipped with a P2-6000 voice advisory system. The system was set to advise the pilot of a gear up configuration with an airspeed less than 105 knots. Passengers reported hearing the gear warning; maintenance staff is inspecting the advisory system to determine its serviceability.
User Name: Donaldson, John
Date: 2007/11/27
Further Action Required: Yes
O.P.I.: Commercial & Business Aviation
Narrative: UPDATE Supplemental information received from T.S.B. Initial Notification (#A07C0219): The Superior Airways Piper PA-31-350 aircraft was on final approach into Poplar Hill Airport (CPV7). Prior to touchdown, it was determined that the landing gear was not extended and the pilot decided to conduct an overshoot. During the overshoot, blades on both propellers made contact with the runway. The aircraft continued to climb and the aircraft returned to its home base at Red Lake Airport (CYRL) without further incident. Damage was limited to the propeller blades and engines.
Re: Navajo prop contact with ground on approach
I gotta wonder about this.
First, the gear warning was heard by the Pax. Now they are checking the system for the voice system. What happened to the good old fashioned way when the pilot just had to remember to put the gear down?
And whats with having two prop strikes and then flying the plane, with passangers back another 20 minutes or so...seems like some really really bad piloting going on here.
I would really like to know the experience level of that pilot, the training they got, and their experience on a Navajo. There just might be some lessons to be learned here. It is sad that seldom do we see some real root issues discussed in any of these reports.
First, the gear warning was heard by the Pax. Now they are checking the system for the voice system. What happened to the good old fashioned way when the pilot just had to remember to put the gear down?
And whats with having two prop strikes and then flying the plane, with passangers back another 20 minutes or so...seems like some really really bad piloting going on here.
I would really like to know the experience level of that pilot, the training they got, and their experience on a Navajo. There just might be some lessons to be learned here. It is sad that seldom do we see some real root issues discussed in any of these reports.
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
Re: Navajo prop contact with ground on approach
I think we should applaud the pilot for his "cat like" reflexes, and for a great save. Really. He left the gear up. That was right "up there" on the stupid scale. You can't argue that. He heard the tell tale chattering of props upon gravel, and he reacted. Instantly! Around he went. Now, he probably should have gone around very "gently" right there at Popular Hill and landed (this time with the gear down) and inspected his wounded bird. He should have called his base from PV7 and requested assistance. Perhaps. But none of us were there. He elected to fly home. His aircraft was obviously running well enough to fly him 65 nm. Hell, he made it. Safe and sound. WOW, that must have caused a skid mark! Thinking about it, with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight, I think he just may have been correct to fly home. He probably needed the twenty-five minutes or so, just to stop shaking?
As usual, we have all the finger pointing. He should have done this. He should have done that. We, for sure he should have put the gear down, I'll give you that much. He's never likely to make that mistake again! As for flying home? It's a toss up. None of us were there. He made it. If an airplane will fly a smooth circuit, it'll most likely fly twenty minutes. I'm sure he went overhead YPM to keep that option open. Anything shaking? No. I'll continue to Red Lake.
In short, his reaction time saved the company a very large repair bill. Everybody go home safe and sound. It was an "incident" that should have been an "accident"...nice save!
He did something we don't see very often. When the chips were down, he actually FLEW the airplane.
As usual, we have all the finger pointing. He should have done this. He should have done that. We, for sure he should have put the gear down, I'll give you that much. He's never likely to make that mistake again! As for flying home? It's a toss up. None of us were there. He made it. If an airplane will fly a smooth circuit, it'll most likely fly twenty minutes. I'm sure he went overhead YPM to keep that option open. Anything shaking? No. I'll continue to Red Lake.
In short, his reaction time saved the company a very large repair bill. Everybody go home safe and sound. It was an "incident" that should have been an "accident"...nice save!
He did something we don't see very often. When the chips were down, he actually FLEW the airplane.
Re: Navajo prop contact with ground on approach
Well,
I guess we see that sometimes all the money in the world won't help....
I guess we see that sometimes all the money in the world won't help....
I don't think the repairs will be done here.......Kirsten, what exactly are your issues with Red Lake area operators?
Yes, Red Lake Airways lost their OC last fall for maintenance infractions but I don't recall them having an accident recently because of their lack of record keeping. Pickerel Arms and Wasaya had a pretty horrific accident each in the last little while but there was no indication either was cutting corners in regards to maintenance. The fact that Lockhart bent their 402 last month is similar to Bearskin's in Thunder Bay last year in that more maintenance or a more enhanced SMS would not have prevented either.
You make things sound like things are out of control and that accidents are waiting to happen because of poor government oversight. Well, you want to know something? My last maintenance audit last week, I was written up for not entering a GPWS upgrade I had added to my GNS430 system as an owner requested entry in my journey log. The work was entered but they wanted me to explain why I wanted a GPWS upgrade installed. I also installed a P2 6000 audio advisory system 3 years back on each aircraft to ensure the gear will never be forgotten. Now I'm looking at the Garmin 600 and EI MVP50 systems for bringing the PA31 into the 21st century. The Quest you'll be seeing in a bit is certified to FAR 23 standard with a 28G rating on the seats, TKS anti-icing and a Garmin 1000. The only reason I haven't upgraded to WAAS receivers is due to the fact that NavCan isn't willing to spend the money to assess remote strips for precision approaches. Yet my aircraft are fully capable of flying fully coupled GPS approaches and we are certified for it. All this from a Red Lake operator you seem to think warrants a safety check. I don't think SMS is going to change a damn thing about how I do things. I want to be safe because one accident will close my business. I see operators like Perimeter crash on a pretty consistent basis yet nothing has changed there in decades. Why not single out specific operators instead of saying 703 operators? Are you afraid of standing up against the likes of Wherle?
So before you open your mouth again about Red Lake operators and all these changes you think are needed, think about this. Who is flying a WWII era plane equipped for VFR use only and refuses to upgrade their fleet or at least modernize what they have? Yes, it costs a lot of money. A hell of a lot but all you do is talk. I put my hard earned money on the line to improve my planes and make them safer. What do you do with your operation to make it safer?
Everyone stay safe out there, and remember that anything can happen to anyone.There are some good AMOs out there and there are some not so good ones...
http://www.jus.gov.mb.ca/
CI04-01-40526
Amazing how they stay in business year after year. Request details through access to information Act and Transport takes a black marker to all the evidence.
Re: Navajo prop contact with ground on approach
Was it the green one or the orange one? I liked the green one!
Re: Navajo prop contact with ground on approach
TAWS, where are these quotes coming from? What does it have to do with the Navajo incident? Are you even in the right thread?
Re: Navajo prop contact with ground on approach
I'm in the right thread...the poster of the qoutes was kept "anonymous"
They have nothing to do with the incident ..... just attitude.
They have nothing to do with the incident ..... just attitude.
Re: Navajo prop contact with ground on approach
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
Re: Navajo prop contact with ground on approach
Ok, I was kind of scratching my head on this one, until I realized that TAWS is quoting from this thread: http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 90#p287390 and the person he is quoting, Anonymous1, appears to be the owner of the company which appears to be the subject of this thread.
I guess the question that begs to be asked, TAWS, is what is the purpose behind the quote, or the message you're trying to send? You'll have to forgive me as I'm getting a little thick in my old age...
Anyway, since you asked for my opinion...
... How did the pilot know the extent of the damage to the engines/props, while still airborne, without proper inspection, and not being a qualified engineer? Isn't that the reason for requiring the following:
Inspection after Abnormal Occurrences
605.88 (1) No person shall conduct a take-off in an aircraft that has been subjected to any abnormal occurrence unless the aircraft has been inspected for damage in accordance with Appendix G of the Aircraft Equipment and Maintenance Standards.
(2) Where the inspection referred to in subsection (1) does not involve disassembly, it may be performed by the pilot-in-command.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regse ... /a625g.htm
And all that notwithstanding any inspections required by the airframe, engine and/or prop manufacturer...
So how does the pilot know whether or not the prop strike may have transmitted itself to a crack in the blade, or worse, the shaft, or other component which could potentially lead to some very serious consequences if flight is continued? I doubt this would be apparent by flying a circuit above the perfectly good airport in question, and listening for abnormal vibrations or what have you. Its more akin to some kind of Russian Roulette. Ah yes, but no accident resulted, and everyone lived, so, no reason to question safety then. That is what is so sad about our industry, we seem to need accidents to cause us to change our thinking and our ways.
Just my two cents of course... being the World War II vintage pilot that I am...
Snoopy
I guess the question that begs to be asked, TAWS, is what is the purpose behind the quote, or the message you're trying to send? You'll have to forgive me as I'm getting a little thick in my old age...
Anyway, since you asked for my opinion...
... How did the pilot know the extent of the damage to the engines/props, while still airborne, without proper inspection, and not being a qualified engineer? Isn't that the reason for requiring the following: Inspection after Abnormal Occurrences
605.88 (1) No person shall conduct a take-off in an aircraft that has been subjected to any abnormal occurrence unless the aircraft has been inspected for damage in accordance with Appendix G of the Aircraft Equipment and Maintenance Standards.
(2) Where the inspection referred to in subsection (1) does not involve disassembly, it may be performed by the pilot-in-command.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regse ... /a625g.htm
And all that notwithstanding any inspections required by the airframe, engine and/or prop manufacturer...
So how does the pilot know whether or not the prop strike may have transmitted itself to a crack in the blade, or worse, the shaft, or other component which could potentially lead to some very serious consequences if flight is continued? I doubt this would be apparent by flying a circuit above the perfectly good airport in question, and listening for abnormal vibrations or what have you. Its more akin to some kind of Russian Roulette. Ah yes, but no accident resulted, and everyone lived, so, no reason to question safety then. That is what is so sad about our industry, we seem to need accidents to cause us to change our thinking and our ways.
Just my two cents of course... being the World War II vintage pilot that I am...
Snoopy
“Never interrupt someone doing something you said couldn’t be done.” Amelia Earhart
Re: Navajo prop contact with ground on approach
One and the same, Widow.
Does the TC mouthpiece even know how to fly? Seems to have an opinion on everything. I think the pilot did the right thing!
I don't think an article or quote without an author is worth a pinch of coon dung. And, what has "attitude" got to do with it?
Snoopy, he didn't break any of the quoted CARS. He didn't take off with damage, he continued flight without "knowledge" of "any" damage whatsoever. If he has sustained damage to a prop that resulted in vibration, he would have landed. I don't know the guy, but not many would "limp" home when the aircraft is a shaken, a rattlin, and a rollin. I know I would have continued home via YPM is my aircraft was "healthy"......
I don't think this reflects any negative "attitude" at all. No exterior "pressure" of company "culture" at work here. The guy "brings 'em back alive" and gets raked over the coals by folks who weren't even there.
Does the TC mouthpiece even know how to fly? Seems to have an opinion on everything. I think the pilot did the right thing!
I don't think an article or quote without an author is worth a pinch of coon dung. And, what has "attitude" got to do with it?
Snoopy, he didn't break any of the quoted CARS. He didn't take off with damage, he continued flight without "knowledge" of "any" damage whatsoever. If he has sustained damage to a prop that resulted in vibration, he would have landed. I don't know the guy, but not many would "limp" home when the aircraft is a shaken, a rattlin, and a rollin. I know I would have continued home via YPM is my aircraft was "healthy"......
I don't think this reflects any negative "attitude" at all. No exterior "pressure" of company "culture" at work here. The guy "brings 'em back alive" and gets raked over the coals by folks who weren't even there.
-
Chuck Ellsworth
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3074
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:49 am
- Location: Always moving
Re: Navajo prop contact with ground on approach
HMmmmm......lets think about this for a moment...So before you open your mouth again about Red Lake operators and all these changes you think are needed, think about this. Who is flying a WWII era plane equipped for VFR use only equipped for VFR use only
Maybe a float plane operator who is licensed for day VFR only?equipped for VFR use only
Why would you want to get rid of on of the best float planes ever made?and refuses to upgrade their fleet or at least modernize what they have
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
Re: Navajo prop contact with ground on approach
You'd suggest upgrading a Beech 18, to what exactly? Something more "modern"? Okay, I'll bite. Like what? Again, the fact the the "Snoopster" is lucky enough to fly the mighty twin Beech, has nothing to do with a Navajo doing a Q-tip job on it's props.
Re: Navajo prop contact with ground on approach
Doc made a funny: "...when the chips are down...!"
Nyuk nyuk nyuk.
Nyuk nyuk nyuk.
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
Re: Navajo prop contact with ground on approach
chips heheheh also known as human pesticideRe: Navajo prop contact with ground on approach
To all;
I certainly didn't expect a lot of information but I am amazed at some of the responses which I sure as hell do not understand. I raised the question after I was asked if I knew anything about this incident, which I didn't until yesterday.
However, I cannot fathom for any reason with pax on board, that after knowingly striking the planet with the props, knowing that there is an airport right under the aircraft, that an election would be made to fly the a/c back to Red Lake. Whether the a/c is shaking or vibrating has nothing to do with the PDM that should have been excercised on the spot. Breaking rules or not has nothing to do with it. But what if a prop decided to depart the a/c on the way back to Red Lake? Who would have been the clown then?
Why is that kind of rationale applied to this incident, yet the TC crew were so criticized for flying their King Air back to Gatineau under the same circumstances?
carholme
I certainly didn't expect a lot of information but I am amazed at some of the responses which I sure as hell do not understand. I raised the question after I was asked if I knew anything about this incident, which I didn't until yesterday.
However, I cannot fathom for any reason with pax on board, that after knowingly striking the planet with the props, knowing that there is an airport right under the aircraft, that an election would be made to fly the a/c back to Red Lake. Whether the a/c is shaking or vibrating has nothing to do with the PDM that should have been excercised on the spot. Breaking rules or not has nothing to do with it. But what if a prop decided to depart the a/c on the way back to Red Lake? Who would have been the clown then?
Why is that kind of rationale applied to this incident, yet the TC crew were so criticized for flying their King Air back to Gatineau under the same circumstances?
carholme
Re: Navajo prop contact with ground on approach
MMM, maybe he didn't think he hit the ground.
If the aircraft didn't shake, rattle, or roll I myself may have done the same thing.
So before you criticize the decisions that he made maybe you should think about all the variables of what may have happened.
P.S- I know the pilots of superior on a personal level so watch what you say as I KNOW that if there was anything wrong that they were aware of, they would have landed.
Exempt for that anonymous guy he's just nuts!! haha, just kiddin man
If the aircraft didn't shake, rattle, or roll I myself may have done the same thing.
So before you criticize the decisions that he made maybe you should think about all the variables of what may have happened.
P.S- I know the pilots of superior on a personal level so watch what you say as I KNOW that if there was anything wrong that they were aware of, they would have landed.
Exempt for that anonymous guy he's just nuts!! haha, just kiddin man
Re: Navajo prop contact with ground on approach
Well carholme, no rules were broken. You mention PDM. Okay, lets fly with that. First off, PDM is, IMHO at least, just one more warm and fuzzy term justifying some TC guys job in Ottawa. But, lets look at some of the decisions on the table on that flight. Is my aircraft damaged? No way of knowing for sure. Did I really hit the ground? Maybe not. The airplane would be wrecked? Wouldn't it? Okay, I'm in the air again (if I ever was on the ground) what to do? We'll just climb out. Reduce power a little. Hmmmm, seems fine. Guess we didn't hit. Must change pants. Everything seems fine. Increase power. Seems fine. Looks good through the props. No vibration. I'll take it overhead Pikum, just in case. Still fine. Think I'll make for home.........that's what PDM is all about. It's confronting decisions. Making them. Some decisions are wrong. Some are right. I can cite more than a few decisions that sure sounded right, but ended up wrong. Here's one....Air Canada DC8...hard landing at YYZ. Elected to become airborne. Killed all on board. In that case, the decision made was as per AC's SOP. I find it really hard to fault a guy who made a decision that actually worked.
How many gear up landings have you witnessed, where a blade actually parted company with the aircraft? If you have no vibration, the prop ain't leaving.
I departed "Kastatrama" in a Caravan a few years ago. Went through a small "lake" on the take off run. Destroyed the prop. Didn't know it till I got back to YWG. Not even a hint. Prop went into the trash can. These things are tough! When I saw the prop I couldn't believe it had not come apart in flight. Not much fun in a single!
Got to tell you carholme, I've been doing this for a long time. I don't take it lightly. If he'd landed gear up, I would have been the first to give him the "dumb bunny" award. But I think he made the right decision. That time. That day. Circumstances alter cases. Any sign of a sick airplane, and I'm sure he would have plopped it down in Popular Hill.
How many gear up landings have you witnessed, where a blade actually parted company with the aircraft? If you have no vibration, the prop ain't leaving.
I departed "Kastatrama" in a Caravan a few years ago. Went through a small "lake" on the take off run. Destroyed the prop. Didn't know it till I got back to YWG. Not even a hint. Prop went into the trash can. These things are tough! When I saw the prop I couldn't believe it had not come apart in flight. Not much fun in a single!
Got to tell you carholme, I've been doing this for a long time. I don't take it lightly. If he'd landed gear up, I would have been the first to give him the "dumb bunny" award. But I think he made the right decision. That time. That day. Circumstances alter cases. Any sign of a sick airplane, and I'm sure he would have plopped it down in Popular Hill.
Re: Navajo prop contact with ground on approach
flyinhigh;
What the hell are you talking about or more to the point, just who do you think you are telling me that I had better watch what I say. I state my opinion and if you don't like it that's fine but I don't take threats from some jerk on an open forum.
You could be some schoolboy diddling yourself for all I know.
Mind you if you tell us who you are, I am sure we will all bow in deference to your great wisdom.
Doc;
You have stated you opinion and I have mine, what's the problem, you are not going to convince me that the unknown is a sure thing. Again, in reference to the King Air at Gatineau and the slagging those guys took, why is this one any different?
carholme
What the hell are you talking about or more to the point, just who do you think you are telling me that I had better watch what I say. I state my opinion and if you don't like it that's fine but I don't take threats from some jerk on an open forum.
You could be some schoolboy diddling yourself for all I know.
Mind you if you tell us who you are, I am sure we will all bow in deference to your great wisdom.
Doc;
You have stated you opinion and I have mine, what's the problem, you are not going to convince me that the unknown is a sure thing. Again, in reference to the King Air at Gatineau and the slagging those guys took, why is this one any different?
carholme
Re: Navajo prop contact with ground on approach
carholme, we don't agree. I'm good with that. Neither one of us is always right. Or wrong. That's cool. As for the King Air in Gatineau.....refresh me. What happened there?
Re: Navajo prop contact with ground on approach
“Never interrupt someone doing something you said couldn’t be done.” Amelia Earhart
Re: Navajo prop contact with ground on approach
Going out on a limb here, but. 1. These guys KNEW there was a good deal of damage, and elected to fly anyway.
2. It shouldn't matter, but these were two probably highly experienced guys who spend their lives telling us what we are doing wrong. Like it or not, they should be held to a higher standard. ie. if you can't do it right, don't preach to me! I'm not listening, because you have NO credibility.
3. There was a crew of two, who should have known better. I mean, the fuselage was damaged!
4. They were in a training situation. I mean, how far up their asses were their heads? They BOTH forgot the gear??
This is a perfect example of how circumstances alter cases.
2. It shouldn't matter, but these were two probably highly experienced guys who spend their lives telling us what we are doing wrong. Like it or not, they should be held to a higher standard. ie. if you can't do it right, don't preach to me! I'm not listening, because you have NO credibility.
3. There was a crew of two, who should have known better. I mean, the fuselage was damaged!
4. They were in a training situation. I mean, how far up their asses were their heads? They BOTH forgot the gear??
This is a perfect example of how circumstances alter cases.
