Pacific Coastal lashes out - today's Globe and Mail

[safetywatch]

ROBERT MATAS

From Monday's Globe and Mail

November 24, 2008 at 5:06 AM EST

VANCOUVER — In the spotlight following two fatal crashes, a senior Pacific Coastal Airlines official lashed out yesterday at customers who push pilots of small planes who go into remote areas to fly in marginal conditions.

"There's some hypocrisy from customers," Spencer Smith, the airlines vice-president of customer service and communications, said in an interview.

"Everybody says safety is a really important thing up to the moment you tell them they are not going anywhere because the weather is bad."

Recalling an incident from a few weeks ago, Mr. Smith said a pilot had told the dispatcher that the winds were too strong for a flight. A corporate client with employees on the flight asked the airline to direct their employees to another airline that was prepared to fly.

PCA contacted the airline to advise them of the dangerous weather conditions. The airline thanked PCA, but the corporate customer was upset, suggesting PCA had been out of line, Mr. Smith said. The company felt it was not PCA's place to suggest other airlines should not be flying, he said.

Mr. Smith declined to reveal the company. "This happens on a regular basis and we have to manage that," he said.

A pilot and six passengers were killed on Nov. 16 when a PCA flight from Vancouver crashed into a hillside on nearby South Thormanby Island, about 20 minutes after taking off. One person survived with extensive burns.

In August, a PCA flight slammed into a mountain on northern Vancouver Island 10 minutes after take-off from Port Hardy, killing five men. Two men survived that crash. Mr. Smith said the aircraft that crashed earlier this month had a scheduled maintenance check six days before the accident and extensive refurbishing a year earlier. "Ongoing line-maintenance" was completed daily, he said. They go through a specific check-list, marking whether any issues are found and what actions were taken to rectify problems before the aircraft resumes service, he added.

The plane was a Grumman Goose, a hardy Second World War vintage aircraft that seats a pilot and nine passengers. It is flown without modern instrumentation, requiring the pilot to follow visual flight rules. The day of the crash, the pilot left Vancouver following "special" visual flight rules because of poor visibility.

However, the aircraft was equipped with a GPS that could switch back and forth from an aeronautical GPS to a marine GPS. The plane had a GPS tracking unit as well as GPS for navigation purposes.

The company had received no reports about issues involving the GPS or anything else on the aircraft Mr. Smith said.

A preliminary Transport Canada audit following the recent accident found that the company was exceeding the federal regulator's requirements, he also said. Although not required, the company has adopted a self-auditing system that is intended to enable airlines to identify potential hazards in their operations.

Also, the federal agency has not been critical of the pilots' attitude to work, Mr. Smith said. Critics have said some pilots who fly small planes in remote areas feel under pressure to take chances in difficult conditions in order to keep their jobs.

"Is there a culture of pushing it?" Mr. Smith said. "That's difficult to measure. There is nothing technical you can put your finger on. But [Transport Canada] did not feel any culture [of that sort] was in our operation."

PCA does not put pressure on its pilots to fly in bad weather, Mr. Smith said. "You will not find one employee who has ever been terminated for not going out and flying in hazardous conditions," he said.

Bill Yearwood, a spokesman for the Transportation Safety Board, said in an interview Friday the agency had begun gathering evidence and conducting interviews that could explain what went wrong to cause the accident earlier this month.

Whether the GPS malfunctioned was one of hundreds of questions that investigators will ask, Mr. Yearwood said. "We look at everything - all equipment is questionable until it is confirmed to be operating okay," Mr. Yearwood said.

The investigators will also look at the regulations that set the ground rules for flying and whether the regulations are enforced. "We try to determine how risk to the system is managed, and if it is managed, at what level," he said, adding that investigators will look at the decisions made by the pilot, dispatch operators and company. He anticipated the investigation would take months, with investigators going wherever the information takes them.

The investigation into the August accident is continuing. No date has yet been announced for when investigators will complete that report.

[Rowdy]

Wow.. Good on em for informing the competition that they were sitting it out for weather. Total bullshit to be bullied by a customer, and obviously the competitor is a class act for not taking the trip either. Thats how it should be. I would never take off to a destination that another pilot had deemed the weather unacceptable.

[2R]

Have they eliminated carb icing as a contributing factor of the crashes yet ?

[MrWings]

I can relate. I had this happen.

It was spring and this strip at the gas plant was a mud hole. A pilot had just come back the day before and told the chief pilot that he was lucky to get out of there.

Well it rained that night on top of it. While preparing for my flight, the chief pilot came out and told the customer that we weren't going to go out because the strip condition was bad.

The customer called the plant and the guy there said it wasn't so bad. Still, we weren't going to go.

Well the guy got pissed, swore a bit, and then went to the end of hangar row to our competition. They gladly flew him. The guys at the plant had to push that AC out of the turn around area.

So, the customer knew the risk but still wanted to take the chance. I'm glad our CP had the balls to make the decision based on pilot info and not that of the customer or the dollars.

[2R]

Ever wondered how some off those loggers get their blasting caps into remote areas ?
I bet most pilots cannot tell you what flight they went in on

[beaverbob]

2R What does blasting caps have to do with it? While its true that blasting caps could be loaded in a plane undeclared by the owner, in the case of peter Kiewit, Its highly unlikly as they have boats commuting into Toba from Campbell River on a regular bases.

This is about pushing weather and in my experience with PCA pushing weather is a non issue, unless the pilot pushes himself. Never has PCA as a company or its dispatchers ever required me to fly if I didn't want to for weather reasons. Spencer explains it accurately. In fact I would say the opposite is true. This is not the company fault at all.

[Widow]

On another thread, it was suggested that Pasco may still be paying pilots by mileage or hourly ... is this true????

[beaverbob]

As far as I know they still do but the pay is high enough to not likly be a factor.

[Widow]

What difference does a high pay scale (by the hour or mileage) make if you've been weathered in for five days and have to make the mortgage?

[2R]

It would be wise to wait until the results of any investigation before apportioning blame nil factum.
Just now the only common fact is that both gooses where operated by the same company.The arguement that the operator bears no fault or blame is a weak one when two aircraft crash so close in time.
When those aircraft were operated by the previous owners (MAC-BLO not a scottish drug company) They were certified for IFR flight.Pasco removed the IFR panels that Mac-Blo had installed.Pasco also removed the big comfy leather executive seating .Those IFR panels were removed before the pilot of the last doomed flight worked there.Whether Pasco ever recertified the aircraft for IFR i do not know as the last time i saw those goose's flying they had changed from a custom green paint scheme to white and red paint scheme and they where grey and blue at the time of the accidents.
To say nil factum ,who is to blame for this crash would be rude and rash and disrespectful of a great company who deserves the respect that they have earned .
The purpose of any investigation would be to truthfully seek the cause of any crash to prevent other similar occurances .Since there are no more goose's being operated the cash strapped government may choose not to waste the money on such a venture.And so we may never know why the first plane came to grief.Never mind the second one .
They will probably just blame the pilot again and call it another CFIT.
But hey i have been wrong so many times i have lost count and maybe we wil learn the truthful causes and not get stuck in the usual non-productive speculation.

[v314]

I may be wrong but most companies that pay mileage, pay a base salary plus mileage. If I understand beaverbob correctly, what he means is that is the base pay is good enough for the mileage incentive not to be a factor. However, I've never worked for PCA and am not sure if that is the case in this scenario. I have, however, worked for companies before that pay salaries on a base plus mileage system. It has been my experience that the mileage has never been a factor when determining whether or not to do a flight. (My experience, everyone/all situations, is/are different I realize) I am not taking sides in this nor am I speculating as to the cause of the accident. I just want to elaborate on beaverbob's previous post. Lets just give our sincere condolences to the friends and family of all involved and wait for the investigation results.

[Invertago]

I think the past consensus at least among pilots is that Pasco was the place to be. I've been under the impression that Pasco was one of the few especially on the west coast that didn't treat it's pilots like crap. Also, are these crashes not the first for Pasco they just occurred close together?

[jetboy]

Also, are these crashes not the first for Pasco they just occurred close together?

No they are not. I can think of at least two others, one was a Goose, and the other was a Twin Otter. No one died in the Goose, but the Twin Otter had 3 fatalities. The Goose was pilot error; the Twin Otter was maint issues. Elevator cable was corroded, and failed just after T/O.

[Invertago]

Was there a cause determined for those? I'd be interested in reading what happened there.

[beaverbob]

2R it seems you might not know a lot about PCA. Did or do you work there? The EX MB Gooses are still flying. PCA, untill August, was operating 6 gooses. Some were there when the Smith family took over PCA years ago with no injuries and one in a groundloop while training, again no injuries. There record is very good and company control is as good as any company out there.
Dispatchers well trained, pilots well trained, good maintenance. With reference to a previouse thread the Powell River maintenance is as good as any where with some very experienced engineers. What do you mean there are no more gooses being operated? PCA still has four.
I was with PCA befor they got the first turbine and for 10 years. Then back with them for the summer of 04.

Bob

[beaverbob]

My previous statement lost a line.

Some were there when the Smith family took over PCA years ago with no injuries and one in a groundloop while training, again no injuries. There record is very good and company control is as good as any company out there.

Should say:

Some were there when the Smith family took over PCA years ago. They had two previous goose accidents. One on a sched run with no injuries, and one groundloop during training when a brake failed and again no injuries. etc And yes a twin otter after the charter passengers were dropped off.

[2R]

2R it seems you might not know a lot about PCA. Did or do you work there? The EX MB Gooses are still flying. PCA, untill August, was operating 6 gooses. Some were there when the Smith family took over PCA years ago with no injuries and one in a groundloop while training, again no injuries. There record is very good and company control is as good as any company out there.
Dispatchers well trained, pilots well trained, good maintenance. With reference to a previouse thread the Powell River maintenance is as good as any where with some very experienced engineers. What do you mean there are no more gooses being operated? PCA still has four.
I was with PCA befor they got the first turbine and for 10 years. Then back with them for the summer of 04.

Bob

Thank you for correcting my error in a pleasant manner.I was under the impression they only had two as one of the pilots who went to work there never corrected my assumption they only had two .I was happy to see them flying those beautiful airplanes.
I have no vested interest in PCA and have never worked for them.
That said i must disagree with your statement that they are good as any company out there .I would say that they are the best company at what they do .And could certainly be held up as to what the industry standard should be .An honest company through and through and have never heard an honest bad word about them ever.

[beaverbob]

thanks 2R,
There a lot of good companies. Although smaller, Seair comes to mind as a very good company. I don't like to claim any company as the best. Many are good, many are mediocre, a few are poor. Some are dangerous I suppose, but no company is anymore dangerous than the pilots or engineers are willing to be.
Bob

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I agree with what Spencer Smith said about customers putting pressure on companies to fly in bad weather, it has been going on forever and will continue to do so.

He is also correct that companies have the obligation to not fly when a competitor cancelles for weather reasons.

Whether the GPS malfunctioned was one of hundreds of questions that investigators will ask, Mr. Yearwood said. "We look at everything - all equipment is questionable until it is confirmed to be operating okay," Mr. Yearwood said.

I would take it from that statement they recovered the GPS and it was in a condition that it can be examined?

[enbt]

Goose panel, for reference. This is PCK in September of this year.