Crash @ North Spirit Lake Ont (4 dead, 1 survivor)

[pdw]

A "CFIT". You're probably right, and no speculation there, it's pretty much guaranteed that's what it will be named. Probably not always fair though, given the fact that the approach was parallel to an 'unpredictable front' and the height of its transition experienced a mile final (given vague weather details available). Those irregular winds (Xknots gusting Xknots) are not available to the pilot when needed most, yet we will again be shown the CFIT description, "Controlled Flight Into Terrain". Not necessarily fair if "Control" (ie simple weather data on short final) is unavailable because it does not exist.

[flyinthebug]

Guys...a simple solution is to use the First Air thread as a model. We had one thread started about the accident. As speculation began to surface, we requested that a 2nd thread be started called "pilot discussion". It worked well. Those that wished to pass their condolences (or read ones passed on) were able to do so without having to read a bunch of pilots speculate on how their mother/father/sister/brother/husband died. CID is correct in saying its simple human decency to offer condolences...and if we start a 2nd thread, im sure we can speculate til the cows come home... without offending anyone but ourselves.
Lets leave the religious debate for a more appropriate forum. We can all be decent and respectful whether we believe in God or not.

Fly safe all.

[Cat Driver]

Aviation and aviation safety is a subject I have a fair amount of experience in, I am truly interested in factual examination of any accident.

Without facts we are left with speculation.

[robertsailor1]

I have a good friend that sat on the aviation accident board (whatever the proper name was) and he tells me that as good as they have the science down in accident reviews there is still some speculation.

[cncpc]

What is that slogan on the safety letter? "Learn from the mistakes of others, you won't live long enough to make them all yourself". I'm very sure that we in this forum are far ahead of public knowledge on what caused the Resolute Crash, the NT Air crash, and others as they may have arisen. Call it speculation or whatever you want, this is a forum of pilots who go out in the morning to carry out those hard responsibilities. If there is some event from the day before, and some post on here that may shed some light on how such a thing could have been prevented, speculate away.
My only other comment is that we owe it to dead pilots to fully understand what happened to them and their aircraft before pointing fingers.


I editted out the off topic comments.
Bandaid

[Cat Driver]

cncpc has expressed my position on this very eloquently.

Now lets get back to discussing these accidents using our knowledge of aviation instead of bickering over semantics.

[Jastapilot]

Ok, let me give it a try. I'd like the people who think the prop was NOT feathered explain to me, after seeing the pictures and video how that is NOT a feathered prop? I submit it may not be FULLY feathered, but it looks at least 90% feathered! And why no major damage to the prop?

This plane ended up in the snow basically intact. The people on board seem to have survived the crash based on the witnesses quoted in the paper saying they heard them as they were trying to rescue them. They died post crash because they were trapped inside and rescuers couldn't get to them in time. The sole survivor even said it

If he had been running on Aux tanks, which is normal to do, and had forgotten to switch them, the time of the crash is approximately when the tanks would run dry, based on my own experience, and supporting posts from other ex or current chieftain pilots... Another pilot said that he's had engines quit for a few seconds during a bank when on the aux tanks, and the crash survivor is quoted in the paper saying the plane did a sharp turn and then they were on the snow.

Why was he in the air an hour longer than it should have taken?

[goldeneagle]

Ok, let me give it a try. I'd like the people who think the prop was NOT feathered explain to me, after seeing the pictures and video how that is NOT a feathered prop?

If the prop was not in fine pitch at the time it stopped, then the locks would not be able to engage. Add a little residual oil pressure in the hub, and, the propeller will end up looking pretty much like what is in the photos.

That's just one possible explanation.

As for the flight time, have you read the part about 'circling waiting for snowplow to finish' ? Was that a 5 minute wait, or a 30 minute wait, I dunno, but it provides a pretty open ended reason for extended flight time.

[cncpc]

Ok, let me give it a try. I'd like the people who think the prop was NOT feathered explain to me, after seeing the pictures and video how that is NOT a feathered prop? I submit it may not be FULLY feathered, but it looks at least 90% feathered! And why no major damage to the prop?

This plane ended up in the snow basically intact. The people on board seem to have survived the crash based on the witnesses quoted in the paper saying they heard them as they were trying to rescue them. They died post crash because they were trapped inside and rescuers couldn't get to them in time. The sole survivor even said it

If he had been running on Aux tanks, which is normal to do, and had forgotten to switch them, the time of the crash is approximately when the tanks would run dry, based on my own experience, and supporting posts from other ex or current chieftain pilots... Another pilot said that he's had engines quit for a few seconds during a bank when on the aux tanks, and the crash survivor is quoted in the paper saying the plane did a sharp turn and then they were on the snow.

Why was he in the air an hour longer than it should have taken?

All good points in that post. Very near to the heart of the question set in this accident.

I blew up the photo showing the left side best. It does appear that the chord of the prop is aligned with the engine. It is hard to tell if both blades are from No. 1, or the back blade is actually from No. 2, but yes, neither one shows any tip curling. I've marked up the photo below to show something that seems to stand out to me, but may be nothing. It is the area behind the firewall on No. 1. There seems to have been a fair bit of burning there with the top of the nacelle collapsed into that cavity behind the firewall. And something that burned hot was on the shelf at the back.

If that's the right side shell of the fuselage laying over there, it looks like somebody got the emergency hatch out as well.

markedup.jpg (138.03 KiB) Viewed 3009 times

[razorblade]

The Winnipeg Free Press reports that the sole survivor of the incident is going to speak to the press tmrw.

Is everyone ready for media exaggerations and inaccuracies?

[chesty]

Those props don't look featherd to me. I think from the picture you are looking at a blade from each engine. If you look at the spinner you can see the start of the blade coming out. That picture is deciving.

I looked at a video from cbc news. There is a close up picture of the engines, looks like two bladed props. They were not feathered, the right engine's prop deffinetly hit under load, the left one you can see is twisted and curled at the top.

edit: Take back the 2 blade and replace with 3 blade!

[cncpc]

You're definitely looking at a blade from each engine if it was a two blade prop. If three blade, I'd say its on the same engine.

[costermonger]

It's a Chieftain, so it'd be a 3-blade. That said, to me it looks like one blade from each side.

Also, the burned out area behind the left engine is about where the Nayak nacelle tank would be, if this aircraft had one.

[bandaid]

Some of you may notice that some of your comments are removed. I took the liberty of removing the off topic comments trying to be mindful that friends and family may be reading. Please try and keep your posts on topic.
Thanks,
Bandaid

[phillyfan]

//Pointless post removed by Sulako. Next time's a strike. Smarten up.

[flyinthebug]

Survivor speaks to the media...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/relive-every-n ... 58270.html

[pdw]

Another pointless remark. Come on guys/gals, if you have nothing contructive to say then move on. As Sully put so well, next time a strike.
Bandaid.

[chesty]

I'd like the people who think the prop was NOT feathered explain to me, after seeing the pictures and video how that is NOT a feathered prop? I submit it may not be FULLY feathered, but it looks at least 90% feathered! And why no major damage to the prop?

edit: I see damage to both props, I'd say not featherd.

[Doc]

Not buying the prop feathered theory. Nothing but a very poorly angled photo to base it on. The prop looks damaged to me. You blow it up, it looks damaged a foot or so from the tip inwards. Has nobody taken a look at the throttle quadrant? Therein lies the answer....not some grainy photo.

[chesty]

I posted the pic to show that the prop is damaged.

[cncpc]

I'm not sure we learned anything from Mr. Shead's recollections, other than weather doesn't seem to have played a part, or so far as his observations might have told us.

We do know the fire was in the right wing, not Janitrol related, and that it wasn't an immediate issue as he worked inside the plane while observing it outside. People were all unconscious, at a minimum. The pilot seems to have been killed by the impact, which was severe enough to at least have knocked everyone unconscious except Mr. Shead in the back. The fire did not come into the cabin for some time, and started in the back and burned forward. There was a pilot door. The door was open so that people who were mobile could have come forward and out with the fire behind them.

There is a video on the Sun site. It shows prop damage consistent with landing power on the right one, and its correct there is tip damage on the left we see, but others may have much more damage. I think once the engine stops and there is no oil pressure, pressure on the blades against ice or snow may tend to move them to the feather position.

Even though the wreckage doesn't seem to show it, it seems there was a very serious impact when this airplane contacted the ice service. Much more than you'd expect from an unintentional controlled descent onto a lake with what appears to be at least two feet of snow.

More questions than answers now.

[CpnCrunch]

Even though the wreckage doesn't seem to show it, it seems there was a very serious impact when this airplane contacted the ice service. Much more than you'd expect from an unintentional controlled descent onto a lake with what appears to be at least two feet of snow.

I'm not so sure. The gear was down, so when he landed the nosewheel would likely dig into the snow causing the plane to come to a stop from cruise speed very suddenly. Remember this:

http://www.copanational.org/PPMarch2009Eng.cfm

In that case the pilot and passengers got off lucky, presumably because they were going much slower.

[RatherBeFlying]

The last Navahos on the Lock Haven factory floor were condemned after the factory was flooded out. NASA took the hulls and used them in crash tests to research crash dynamics.

One interesting result showed by high speed photography is that as the fuselage bent when contacting the ground a crease ran along the ceiling front to rear as the fuselage contacted the ground. After coming to rest the fuselage looked normal, but the passengers would suffer serious head injuries as the ceiling came down on them.

The survivor's account of bring unable to rouse the passengers is consistent with the crash dynamics observed by NASA. In this case, being in a more rigid part of the fuselage was the best place to be.

The crash scene photographs I have seen show the airplane in the middle of a large ice expanse -- typical of many whiteout crash scenes. Perhaps an engine lost power at a critical point in the turn, but many other pilots in whiteout have come to grief by losing orientation.

[CpnCrunch]

The crash scene photographs I have seen show the airplane in the middle of a large ice expanse -- typical of many whiteout crash scenes. Perhaps an engine lost power at a critical point in the turn, but many other pilots in whiteout have come to grief by losing orientation.

Even without an engine failure, whiteout conditions could have led to the pilot descending too low without realising in legal VFR weather. It would be similar to a black-hole approach at night or a glassy water landing on a large lake, where the optical illusion can cause the pilot to descend too low if he isn't paying attention to his altimeter.

http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/182402-1.html

[chesty]

I understand the effects of whiteout conditions(I have a fair amount of ski time) but from where the crash happend if there was good vis the pilot should have seen the island right infront of him and the shorline to the right to keep himself oriantated. He looks to be fairly close to both.