Five Deaths Demand Justice Petition

[Widow]

Received today.

December 7, 2007
Ms. Kirsten Stevens
492 South McPhedran Road
Campbell River BC V9W 5K5

Dear Ms. Stevens:

The British Columbia Coroners Service (BCCS) continues to conduct an investigation into the aviation incident that resulted in the death of your husband and four others on February 28,2005. All factors, such as human, mechanical, environmental, or other, that may have contributed to the incident, are being examined by the coroner. The Chief Coroner has full confidence in the investigation conducted by the Transportation Safety Board, including most recently, the examination ofthe aircraft's engine. The investigation will address any and all relevant concerns with respect to the logging industry and the mechanics of the airplane.

It is mandatory that aviation as well as forestry related incidents be reviewed by the Inquest Committee at the Office ofthe Chief Coroner. That review is currently underway, and once it is completed the committee will then make the recommendation to the Chief Coroner whether the matter should go to public inquest.

The coroner's investigation is independent, focusing on the facts, rather than assigning fault or blame. At the conclusion of the investigation, recommendations may be made to prevent a similar event from occurring in the future. These recommendations can be made by the coroner
in their Judgement of Inquiry or by a jury at a public inquest.


Thank you for writing.

Yours truly,



John Les
Solicitor General

Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General

Also received today was a shipment of engine parts returning from the TSB. Hopefully this means that the engineering report will soon be complete.

[Widow]

The final engineering report has been received from the TSB. They have not identified a specific concern which led to our contended engine failure, although there were certain 'anomolies' both in and of the report. I will give more information when I have had time to fully read and assess the report myself.

Oh yes, and to repeat myself:

The follow-up W-Five episode to "A Routine Flight" has been scheduled for December 29th, 2007.

The episode, titled "Kevin's Quest", continues the chronicle of the families' efforts to find answers, focusing on the recent recovery of the engine from C-GAQW, the aircraft whose loss also resulted in the loss of our loved ones, Arnie Feast, Fabian Bedard, Dave Stevens, and Kevins' brothers, Doug and Trevor Decock on the 28th of February, 2005. The story will air the second half of the program.

We hope you will join us in watching "Kevin's Quest".

[C-FABH]

Hey Widow -- was channel surfing after dinner and am watching the show right now. I have the whole family tuned into it!

[Widow]

Hope you enjoyed it C-FABH ... the program was bumped here in the west by an American football game (grrr). It may air again this afternoon ...

In any case, "Kevin's Quest" can now be viewed at the WFive website here:

Kevin's Quest

It isn't what we'd hoped, but it is something.

[snoopy]

Hi Widow,
Thank you for the online link! While it may not have been what you hoped, given the lack of an obvious "smoking gun", it was very well done indeed. It certainly shows the dedication of the family to find answers to what happened, and the human element is very poignant. We as pilots can only hope, that in the unlikely event that misfortune befalls us, that someone remains to persevere in the same way, for truth and justice.
You got this far, something will come of it...
Best Regards,
Snoopy

[xsbank]

Me too, with bells on!

Snoopy, PM me?

[Widow]

Well, you know, I'm "Kirsten" not "Kristen" (I am devastated that Malorek said my name incorrectly ... know the feeling Snoopy???). They also gave undeserved credit to Nuytco ... it was International Underwater Surveyors and their ROV (remote operated vehicle) which indentified and provided underwater footage of the wreck - Nuytco spent three days recovering it in July '05, left behind the engine, then spent three more days in Feb/March '07 attempting to locate the engine (which sat exactly where it had been when still attached to the fuselage).

This episode was basically a rehash of the "A Routine Flight" with a little new information. We were hoping for a little investigative journalism piece, and what we got was a little sob story. Oh those poor families ...

So, now we wait for the Coroner's decision ... and in the meantime, plan our own engineering inspections of various parts.

[Widow]

January 23, 2007

Your file: Z 5015-11760 U
RDMIS# 3845196
Mrs. Kirsten Stevens
492 S. McPhedran Road
Campbell River, BC
V9W 5K5


Dear Mrs. Stevens,

I am responding to your e-mail correspondence dated December 5,2007. The
department has no further information to provide you beyond what has previously
been communicated to you. However, to reiterate:

With regards to your Access to Information request, every effort is made to
ensure requested documents are provided should they be in the custody of
Transport Canada. The training records of the flight follower are not in our
possession, nor are they required to be by regulation or policy.

As stated in previous correspondence, an investigation was initiated with respect
to the Canada Labour Code and the Civil Aviation Occupational Health and
Safety Program. It is recognized that your husband and the other passengers
onboard the aircraft were deemed "persons granted access" to a federally
designated workplace, but unfortunately there were no witnesses to this accident,
and no determined cause of death of the pilot due to the body never being
recovered. ( ) As a result of very limited information, the investigation was closed.
Since the closing of the investigation, there has been no additional factual
information brought forward that would have influenced the decision to close the
investigation.

Your recommendation that float plane pilots be required to undertake egress
training, will be forwarded to the Secretariat, Civil Aviation Regulatory Advisory
Council, on your behalf.

As noted in previous correspondence, a Minister's Observer was and continues to
be assigned to this accident. In addition, we also reiterate the company was
operating in compliance with CAR 723.16(1)(d).

I would like to take this opportunity to again express our condolences on your loss
as a result of this accident and also thank you for sharing your views.

Yours truly,

David J. Nowzek
Regional Director, Civil Aviation

As I'm sure you can imagine, I find it extremely frustrating that having a clear cause of death for MY HUSBAND, has no affect on the decision to investigate for infringements of the labour code.

So, if we go down, we go down with guns blazing ...


We are in what we hope will be the final leg before finally getting some (proof positive) answers. In order to help ensure this becomes a reality, we ask for your help in finalizing the petition. If you have not already done so, please sign and pass on to anyone else you think may be interested in our cause. If you have been collecting signatures on a paper petition, please contact me at dhc2widow@hotmail.com, or via facebook, as soon as possible, to arrange for their return.

Thanks all and, as always, stay safe.

http://www.petitiononline.com/cgaqw/petition.html

[Widow]

So after a third foot washed up (see this thread: http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 49&t=39815) I've created this map to show where we were dragging (the star) and where each of the three feet have washed up. DNA has still not been collected despite our requests. Why don't the RCMP or the coroner see there might be a connection? Seems so obvious, they should clear it up immediately. Just more foul-ups for the families to contend with.



Is there a government agency that hasn't screwed up in this case????

[Widow]

CBC News (TV and Radio) is doing a spot today, the 3rd anniversary of the accident.

If it's a slow news day, it may get picked up from the Vancouver region for use in the national edition.

[Widow]

Turns out A-Channel did a much more interesting story ...

Enjoy ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRRWeoOC4zk

[snaproll20]

I hope the new revelation sticks, Kirsten.
Look forward to hearing about it.

Keep your chin up.

Snaproll20

[Widow]

March 4, 2008



Attention:

Transport Canada: Merlin Preuss, Dave Nowzek (RDMIS# 3845196, Docket# AAR2006G097207)
Transportation Safety Board: Terry Burtch, Bill Yearwood (A05P0039)
Ministry of Labour: Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Scott Streiner
Worksafe BC: Roberta Ellis


Re: Workplace Deaths of
Arnold Feast
Dave Stevens
Fabian Bedard
Doug Decock
Trevor Decock

To Whom It May Concern;

By now you should be fully aware of the concerns of the families’ with respect to an investigation into infringements of the Canada Labour Code (Part II) which may have resulted in one or more fatalities in the accident of aircraft mark C-GAQW on February 28, 2005 (please refer to this letter for particulars: http://www3.telus.net/public/t9232724/h ... Preuss.htm).

Given the cause of death for my husband, Dave Stevens, and the facts surrounding the accident, including but not limited to the lack of adherence by MJM Air and its representatives to the Emergency Checklist as described in the Operations Manual, the families expected a full investigation into the company’s practices with respect to safety. As you know, in provincially regulated industries (such as forestry, in which the four passengers were employed/contracted) this responsibility would normally fall to Worksafe BC. As this was an aviation accident, the responsibility for this investigation would instead normally fall to the federal regulator, Transport Canada. Transport Canada, however, refuses to investigate, citing a lack of information and no cause of death for the pilot (whose remains have never been recovered).

I must say, it is very disappointing that in light of five men dying on the job:

• a) information was not volunteered explaining that jurisdiction would not fall to WorkSafe BC;
  
  b) information was not volunteered explaining that Transport Canada was not investigating or why they would not investigate;
  
  c) information was not volunteered explaining who was responsible to investigate.

It has only been through our continued questioning, pressure and research that we now, three years later, come to question if in fact the responsibility for an investigation into infringements of the Canada Labour Code should have fallen to the HRSDC-Labour Program, and if they have been kept abreast of this investigation and our concerns as required by the Memorandum of Understanding HRD/TC (http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/comme ... u/menu.htm) and the Memorandum of Understanding HRD/TSB (http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/comme ... nu1994.htm), if Transport has followed their Policy Letter #124 (http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/comme ... /PL124.htm), and if HRSDC have followed procedures as described in 700.5 Operations Program Directives (OPDs)/Interpretation, Policies and Guidelines (IPGs)( http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/lp/lo/opd-ipg/opd/700-5.shtml).

At this time we request your assistance in clarifying whose responsibility this investigation was/is, and ensuring that an investigation has/will be completed.

Respectfully,


Kirsten Stevens

On behalf of the Stevens, Decock, Feast and Bedard/MacDonald families
C.C.:
M.P. Catherine Bell
M.L.A. Claire Trevena
NDP Transport Critic Brian Masse
NDP Labour Critic Libby Davies
B.C. Coroner Rose Stanton
R.C.M.P. Roger Collins
U.S.W. Steve Hunt


Note: Copied to the media

[Widow]

I was "a little" disappointed with this response from Transport:

> Dear Mrs. Stevens,
>
> I am responding to your e-mail of March 4, 2008. The department has no further information to provide to you beyond what has been previously provided to you.
>
> However, to reiterate:
>
> As stated in previous correspondence, a Transport Canada investigation was initiated with respect to the Canada Labour Code and the Civil Aviation Occupational Health and Safety Program. As a result of very limited information, the investigation was closed. Since closing the investigation, there has been no additional information that would have influenced the decision to close the investigation.
>
> I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for sharing your views, as all comments we receive are appreciated.
>
> Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Trevor Heryet at (604) 666-5643 or via e-mail at heryett@tc.gc.ca.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> David Nowzek
> Regional Director Civil Aviation

.... So I replied:

To: "Nowzek, David" <NOWZEKD@tc.gc.ca>; <heryett@tc.gc.ca>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: Civil Aviation Issues Reporting System (CAIRS) File Number GG-8258


> Dear Sirs,
>
> It is very tiring to ask the same questions over and over and continue to
> receive evasive answers.
>
> Would you please confirm or deny that Transport Canada had an obligation to
> investigate the death of the recovered passenger, my husband, David Stevens?
> If this obligation did not fall to Transport Canada, would you please
> explain to whom the obligation did fall, and in what way Transport Canada
> has kept the official agency informed of findings, including those resulting
> from Transport Canada Maintenance and Manufacturing Safety Inspection of the
> floats in November 2006 and maintenance "inconsistancies" which were
> discovered following the recovery of the aircraft engine in September 2007?
>
> Would you kindly describe what "limited information" was reviewed before
> making the decision to close the OH&S investigation? Can you please
> describe what findings would influence the department to re-open an OH&S
> investigation?
>
> Your prompt attention is appreciated.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Kirsten Stevens

I'm afraid I finally got a little snarky.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Widow, you have every right to get snarky.

The following brings the meaning of insincerity to a new low...

> I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for sharing your views, as all comments we receive are appreciated.

Nowzek is a disgrace to the office he holds.

Keep chipping away and don't let him defeat you.

[Widow]

How does this answer my questions? Except to say, "not our job"?

April 24, 2008

Our file Notre reference: CAIRS File GG-8258

Dear Mrs. Stevens,

As previously communicated to you, Transport Canada's CLC Part II investigation was initiated with respect to the suspected death of the pilot as he was an employee of MJM Air Ltd .. The investigative officer commenced the Preliminary Report of a Hazardous Occurrence after being notified of the accident. Based on the total absence of causal information, no witnesses to the event, no confirmed cause of death of the pilot or recovery of his body, the investigation was then placed on hold pending outcome of the Transportation Safety Board's investigation. The results of the TSB investigation provided no further information that would have assisted the CLC investigation. The investigation was subsequently closed. Transport Canada did not investigate nor have obligation to investigate the death of your husband.

The Transportation Safety Board is responsible to conduct aircraft accident investigations for cause.

The Transport Canada CLC investigation will not be re-opened as the body of the pilot has not been recovered and therefore no confirmed cause of death can be ascertained.

Yours truly
David J. Nowzek
Regional Director Civil Aviation

How comfortable does that make you? The pilot's body has never been recovered (and even if it were to be recovered now, chances are no cause of death could be confirmed anymore) and so it doesn't matter if there were safety issues which played a part in his death? The fact that the TSB deemed this a "Class 5 Occurence" and not worthy of a report seems to have directly influenced TCCA's decision to do no further investigation with respect to it's obligations under the CLC.

On the 30th of March, I sent this email:

----- Original Message -----
From: Kirsten Stevens
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 8:32 PM
Subject: CAIRS Follow-up


Merlin Preuss, Director General Transport Canada Civil Aviation
Dave Nowzek, Regional Director, TCCA Pacific
Trevor Heryet, Regional Manager, Commercial & Business Aviation
Joel Schoenberger, Regional Manager, Maintenance & Manufacturing
Adrian Walker, Regional Manager, Enforcement
Deborah Warren, Regional Manager, System Safety


Re: CAIRS: NC-2336, SX-8470/ RDMIS: 3845196, 2106570, 1788515 / Docket #AAR2006G097207

Dear Sir/Madam(s);

Over the past few years, through a series of correspondence variously referenced by the Ministry of Transportation as above, there are a number of questions which remain unanswered. In this letter, we reiterate those questions, and request they be answered directly.

1. In an email from Joel Schoenberger (Regional Manager, Maintenance and Manufacturing) dated January 17, 2007, we were informed that the minimum Frequency of Inspection for Air Taxi operators is to audit every 2.32 years and complete a mandatory inspection every 1.75 years, with adjustments per Appendix “A” of the CAD 20. According to records received through Access to Information, MJM Air had not had an on-site inspection since 2001/10/06 … almost three and half years before the accident, and when the operation first became commercial. In 2004, there were significant changes to the operation, including an added aircraft (type), more pilots, a large contract resulting in significantly more flight time, and other changes , including who was performing maintenance. Can you please explain what rationale was used for the decision NOT to audit/inspect during this time frame, and despite the significant risk factors?

2. Why is it that flight follower training documents were not collected immediately following the accident, as relevant to a CASI-OH&S investigation and in light of the facts related to emergency procedures?

3. Please explain why an Enforcement Action was initiated against the missing pilot, Arnold Feast, instead of against MJM Air?

4. Where was the “ground radio station for the purpose of flight following with the air operator”, (with which the aircraft was capable of communicating), located?

5. As MJM Air operated without a radio for the purposes of flight following, can you please explain how a communications search for a missing aircraft should have been carried out?

6. We have asked repeatedly to be kept abreast of any and all Enforcement actions resulting from investigations into this accident. Please advise us what has happened with the Enforcement Action which was initiated against <snip> as a result of the Inspection Report dated December 20th, 2006? Please also advise what action has been taken regarding <snip> discovered after the engine was recovered in September 2007, and what your follow-up has been to the final TSB Engineering Report?

7. Please acknowledge and respond to our email of March 4th, regarding the OH&S investigation.

8. On the 14th of August, 2005, CBC News reported that Transport Canada was “reviewing the safety of floatplanes following some serious accidents”. Can you please confirm that this review was performed and advise how the results are available to the public?

9. On March 18, 2006, the Victoria “Times Columnist” reported that Transport Canada had “ordered a ‘full review’ of B.C.'s beleaguered air-taxi industry in the wake of the deaths of 14 people in six accidents over the past 13 months.” This was verified in DGCA Merlin Preuss’ speech at the CASS (2006) in Halifax on April 26, 2006. Would you please advise how the results of this review are available to the public?

We anxiously await your response to the questions outlined above.

Respectfully,
Kirsten Stevens
On Behalf of the Stevens, Decock, Feast and Bedard/MacDonald Families


C.C. Rose Stanton, B.C. Coroner Service
Claire Trevena, MLA
Catherine Bell, MP


Note that this letter will be copied to the press.

... I also received this response yesterday.

Our file Notre reference: CAIRS File Gt-8163

Dear Mrs. Stevens,

This is in regards to your correspondence of March 30, 2008 in connection with the accident of February 28, 2005. As a result of my review, I would like to provide you with the following information.

Oversight activities on MJM Air including audits and on-site visits had been conducted by Transport Canada in 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2005. Findings resulted in corrective action plans that have since been implemented.

Following the accident of February 28, 2008, an investigation was initiated under the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code Part II with respect to the suspected death of the pilot. The investigation was terminated due to insufficient evidence and information and as such, the flight following training documents were not required.

Shortly after the report of the accident, an Enforcement file was opened to look into the preliminary details. The file was opened with the pilot-in-command as the subject as is normal after an accident (Enforcement Procedures Manual, section 4.1). Further information pertaining to enforcement action it would be necessary to submit an Access to Information and Privacy request. Please note, that should an active enforcement case be in process, this information may be considered "Protected" information, and as such, not releasable under the Act. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/A-1/index.html

The accident aircraft was equipped with a two-way radio capable of communicating with a ground radio station, which meets the intent of the appropriate requirement of the Canadian Aviation Regulations. A communications search for a missing aircraft could be accomplished by using ground radio stations in the areas of operations. This may include
ground stations operated by the government, air operators or private agencies.

In addition, it is understood that the flight was equipped with a cellular phone. Although both aircraft radio and cellular devices do not provide coverage in all geographic areas, they meet the intent of the appropriate regulatory requirements.
Please find attached my response to your correspondence of March 4, 2008, which was sent to you via email on March 31, 2008.

Transport Canada has conducted a Safety Study on Risk Profiling the Air Taxi Sector in Canada and published March 2008. It is now available at: http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/syste ... y/menu.htm

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for sharing your views, as all comments we receive are appreciated.

Yours truly
David J. Nowzek
Regional Director Civil Aviation

Question 1 has not been answered.
Question 2 has not been answered. See Question 5.
Question 3 has sort of been answered, but since I do not have a copy of the Enforcement Procedures Manual, I cannot verify it's adequacy. And if the manual states that the primary target of an enforcement action following an accident must be the pilot, I must object.
Question 4 has not been answered.
Question 5 has been answered. However, since the communication search was not carried out using "ground stations operated by the government, air operators or private agencies" immediately upon notification that the aircraft was missing, nor was this form of communication search carried out when the Ops Manager instructed the "flight follower" to "make the calls" before he left to conduct his small scale search (nor should he have left the premises after being notified the a/c was missing) ... it begs the question why wasn't this relevant to the TCCA CLC investigation and flight follower training documents?
Question 6 has not been answered.
Question 7 has not been answered (see first letter in this post).
Question 8 has been answered. Although just what was learned from this review is questionable. See thread http://www.avcanada.ca//forums2/viewtop ... 54&t=42148
Question 9 has not been answered.

Does he really think I'm going to leave it like this?

[CD]

Regarding Question 3 and the response provided, here is a bit of additional information that is readily available and "may" better describe the process:

Additionally, following an accident, an EMS file must be opened and a systematic review of the validity of licences, ratings, certificates, etc., at the time of the accident must be carried out. This review must be done regardless of whether or not the accident was the result of a violation. As a matter of course, any perishable evidence, such as weather information, that might have a bearing on the accident must be secured without delay. Once the initial steps are complete, the EMS file should be kept open at least until the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) has issued their report, unless the evidence demonstrates that there was no violation.

Aviation Enforcement Policy Manual, Chapter 6 - Investigations

Of course, it still doesn't respond to the specific question that you asked relating to the operator...

[Widow]

... especially when you consider that the information regarding lack of operational control was loudly complained about by all the families immediately following the accident.

As a result of international agreement and domestic legislation, enforcement is not an option, it is an obligation. Vigorous enforcement action will be taken with respect to all deliberate breaches of the aviation safety standards.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/stand ... apter1.htm

[Widow]

To The Honourable Monte Solberg
Minister of Human Resources and Social Development

Dear Sir;

On the 4th of March, 2008 I forwarded a demand (copy attached) with respect to the lack of investigation into infringements of the Canada Labour Code which resulted in the deaths of workers, Arnold Feast, David Stevens (my husband), Fabian Bedard and brothers Doug and Trevor Decock on the 28th of February, 2005 following an aviation accident in British Columbia.

The Transportation Safety Board will not report and refuse to upgrade from a “Class 5 Occurrence” (see: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/common/policies/occurrences.asp). Transport Canada has indicated they will not investigate due to a "total absence of causal information" and "no confirmed cause of death of the pilot”. There has been no response or acknowledgement from the Ministry of Labour.

Worksafe BC has indicated they have no responsibility as the accident falls under federal jurisdiction, although according to the Worker's Compensation Act, Worksafe BC would normally be obligated to:

(a) determine the cause or causes of the incident,
(b) identify any unsafe conditions, acts or procedures that contributed in any manner to the incident, and
(c) if unsafe conditions, acts or procedures are identified, recommend corrective action to prevent similar incidents.

We cannot accept that no investigation will be done with respect to significant infringements of the Canada Labour Code resulting in five fatalities.

As the Labour Program of Human Resources and Social Development Canada is responsible for the enforcement of the Canada Labour Code with respect to enterprises under Federal Jurisdiction, we respectfully request that the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development direct that an investigation be done, and provide me with contact information for his delegated representative.

I am sure the Minister will understand our frustration, and we look forward to your prompt response.

Kirsten Stevens
On Behalf of the Feast, Stevens, Bedard and Decock Families

[canwhitewolf]

I guess the question that that needs to be asked is: what if the aircraft was sound and what if the accident was caused by an operation outside of limits or perhaps contaminated fuel????????????? Let's ignore pilot error for now.

********************************************************************

how does that explain the oil on splattered on the windshield?

[Widow]

We delivered the wreckage to R.J. Waldron & Co. yesterday. If anyone can figure out what happened, they can ... and will.

Our MLA also made a statement about us in the legislature today.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pTVjzdtEbOk

[Widow]

----- Original Message -----
Cc: Clitsome, Mark ; Preuss, Merlin
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 12:00 PM
Subject: FW: Accident A05P0039


Dear Mrs. Stevens:

Please accept my apologies for our taking so long to respond to your queries. In accordance with the TSB Occurrence Classification Policy, the TSB did not conduct a formal investigation into the accident in question. Therefore, the causes and contributing factors of this accident have not been stated in a TSB final report. However, the TSB did complete exhaustive Engineering examinations of the recovered parts, including the engine and propeller combination, and nothing unusual was found with any of the various items analyzed. Because the factual evidence available did not point to any mechanical defect, it has not been possible for the TSB to determine if any unsafe acts or conditions may have led to the accident. Therefore, a formal TSB investigation would not have uncovered any further evidence in this respect.

With respect to the Canada Labor Code/Occupational and Safety and Health (OSH) issues you mention in your e-mail, it is up to HRSDC to determine whether there is a need for that agency to conduct an investigation for the purpose of fulfilling its mandate. Transport Canada is responsible to conduct OSH investigations of employees employed on aircraft when it is believed that such issues may be involved. The Transport Canada regional office in Vancouver (the responsible office for the region of occurrence) was provided with a copy of the Engineering reports mentioned above.

Sincerely,



Gerard McDonald
Executive Director (TSB)

----- Original Message -----
From: Kirsten Stevens
To: McDonald, Gerard
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: Accident A05P0039


Dear Mr. McDonald,



Thank you for your response to my inquiry. After a more than three years, you are the first person to clarify to whom the responsibility for the investigation into CLC infringements in my husband's death should have fallen. Unfortunately, neither the Minister of Labour, nor the Minister of Human Resources Social Development has responded to my inquiries regarding their investigation.

I should like to state, for the record, that in light of five deaths it is reprehensible that the TSB should have deemed this a Class 5 Occurrence. When the fuselage was recovered in July of 2005, the airframe fuel system was recovered in it's entirety. Yet none of the fuel system (known to be of interest with respect to Beaver accidents) was examined at that time. After the engine was recovered in September 2007, the investigation was still limited with respect to the fuel system. Witness accounts which led the family to locate the wreckage in the beginning, as well as witnesses who contacted the RCMP on the day of the accident, and who contacted the JRCC after the missing aircraft was on the news, clearly indicate that there was something wrong with the aircraft. If it was not mechanical, then there is still a good chance it was a problem with the fuel system. Further, as the evidence indicates that the accident was survivable, and that my husband drowned after suffering extensively from hypothermia, it would seem that the TSB should have examined the flight following, reporting of missing aircraft, underwater egress, floatation devices, etc. as they have in other accidents in the past. I do understand that the TSB has been co-operating with the Coroner with respect to recommendations, however this does not, in my mind, excuse the TSB from fulfilling their responsibility. Furthermore, this information, as well as information about uncertified parts (e.g. carburetor/fuel inlet) was not included in the TSB engineering report, and therefore may not have passed to Transport Canada and/or the HRSDC. Without information with respect to the condition of the aircraft (including floats - which I am told the TSB does not have the expertise to comment on!), engine hours (almost 1600 - how did they get approval for this??!), operational factors, failure to adhere to safety standards and emergency procedures, etc., how can TCCA or HRSDC make appropriate decisions with respect to their investigations? Considering that the TSB's mandate includes:

• conducting independent investigations, including public inquiries when necessary, into selected transportation occurrences in order to make findings as to their causes and contributing factors;
  identifying safety deficiencies, as evidenced by transportation occurrences;
  making recommendations designed to eliminate or reduce any such safety deficiencies; and
  reporting publicly on our investigations and on the findings in relation thereto.

I cannot help but disagree that a full and formal investigation would have had different results. It is not just the cause of the accident which is important, but the contributing factors which resulted in an incident becoming a fatal accident. There are many people, both in and out of the industry, across the country that still follow this investigation and its results. The TSB has not instilled confidence in its investigative process.

The aircraft wreckage is now in the hands of R.J. Waldron & Co. Should these forensic aviation specialists be able to determine the mode of failure, will the TSB upgrade the class of investigation and complete a full report?


Respectfully,


Kirsten Stevens

[CrimsonSkies]

DHC widow.....I think you are just an annoying squak box who is trying to find a fault in everything. Get on with your life! Aviation over the years has had many unfortunate accidents, many have gone unsolved and others have had multiple events leading to the disasters. I think that by you trying to pin this whole incident on an engine failure, only shows that you are simply trying to put blame on one specific event leading to the crash, perhaps you should open your eyes and look outside the box. Over the year, I have read your posts, but I do not agree with the position you take. I feel that you are just looking to try and change an industry that comes with some risks, or most likely you are just trying to set yourself up for a big payday in the end. I'm tired of seeing your posts on various websites, and I believe that your attitude is purely self serving and that you are simply trying to build yourself a case so that you have grounds for a lawsuit in hopes of hitting the cash cow. Your opinion and twists of the facts hold no weight with me, and I hope that you would just go away, you obviously would love to shut down or at least have an impact on our industry with your "opinions". Nobody forced anyone into the plane, yet in our industry there are so many times that passengers want to get something for nothing. If you think that the industry has to set a standard that would eliminate all the risks of flying.......who would be able to afford a flight on such a plane??? Perhaps you were a big fan of Jetsgo and the $1 fare they charged also...Why can't the public get the fact that you get what you pay for! Now don't go barking at my opinion, I am entitled to post my thoughts, just as you have for the last year. I'm just sick of reading your posts and I can see that you have only posted out of anger. BTW....why didn't you start posting your thoughts about our industry before this accident occured if you have such knowledge? Perhaps you should be included in any lawsuit that takes place in the future....imagine, you can then sue yourself! Or perhaps the reason you didn't post prior to the accident was because you were fully aware of the risks involved in flying but you just wanted to ensure that you could still enjoy a flight for as cheap as you could get. I bet that there were other options available that day, but that the decision to go was based on being able to buy the cheapest flight. Well guess what.......that option is available in almost any industry or profession you use today. I just feel that you are just looking for an easy way out because you can't cope with the consequences of the decisions made that fatal day. It's all about money right?? DON'TGO AWAY MAD.........JUST GO AWAY!

end of rant

[2R]

Well if everyone took such a grim view of the world .Nothing would ever improve.
You cannot be serious or expect to be taken seriously by insulting someone who is actually getting to the truth of an accident .
Shallow worthless thoughtless insults do little to contribute to the improvents that other people have achieved.

[Widow]

Sure my husband had a choice ... fly with MJM Air or buy his own ticket to work ... and, he was working, therefore, we cannot sue.

Money has nothing to do with this.