Five Deaths Demand Justice Petition

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Sun May 27, 2007 1:40 pm

Please follow this link to our "Five Deaths Demand Justice Petition". A link has also been added to our website http://www.questforjustice.ca. If you have ideas for further distribution, please let me know. This is the text to the Petition.

To: Prime Minister of Canada
To The Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada;

On the 28th of February 2005, five souls were lost after the air taxi they travelled in “disappeared” minutes after departure from Campbell River, British Columbia. Two days later, the body of one of the passengers was found not ten kilometers away. The autopsy showed he had no serious injuries, but had suffered extensively from hypothermia before slowly drowning. Countless family members, friends and fellow Canadians have been permanently scarred by these fatalities. Three women and ten children are now supported by WorkSafe BC pensions, instead of by their husbands and fathers.

Despite the far-reaching implications, government officials have virtually ignored the seriousness of this fatal accident. The families and volunteers from their communities spent huge amounts of money and their own valuable time to search for and recover the aircraft using information that was immediately available to the Joint Rescue Co-ordination Centre and the RCMP. The Transportation Safety Board (TSB) ignored witness reports and physical evidence of engine failure and poor management, instead taking the easy road and blaming the pilot. The TSB’s failure to accurately report on the accident, resulted in Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) Occupational Health & Safety (OH&S) department closing its file, thus failing to investigate infringements of the Canada Labour Code. The families and their communities continue with efforts to raise the aircraft engine from the ocean floor to provide conclusive evidence. Although the TSB continue to “investigate”, they contend that an engine failure “should not cause the accident” and they can learn nothing by retrieving the engine. Not-withstanding the age of the engine type and its known issues, the families’ and many in the aviation community contend that R-985 is very much in use and can still be learned from, most specifically because of its age. Yet the accident remains a “Class 5 Occurrence” with no investigation for cause. More than two years have passed since these five men lost their lives, yet the BC Coroner Service, the RCMP and WorkSafe BC are unable to further their investigations. The engine remains in a documented location on the ocean floor, with the four missing souls likely nearby.

Significant evidence has been provided justifying a public inquiry by the TSB to: reduce the risk involved in the air taxi, and more specifically floatplane, transportation service sector; uncover otherwise hidden facts; initiate remedial action; reflect the actual extent of lost lives; appease public interest and concern; and to address the deficiencies of Transport Canada Civil Aviation.

Evidence indicates that both public and private sectors have much to learn from a speedy resolution to this investigation.

We the undersigned, demand that an official government body immediately begin a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the fatal accident of the aircraft mark C-GAQW and the subsequent investigation into five unnecessary deaths.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

Don't forget to sign it! Five Deaths Demand Justice Petition

Longtimer · Post by **Longtimer** » Sun May 27, 2007 7:51 pm

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.

rfcPilot · Post by **rfcPilot** » Sun May 27, 2007 8:37 pm

Widow, you seem content on saying TSB says "its the pilot and nothing else" What is the TSB/TC official report anyways?

You seem to be coming on very strongly in the letter, and I can understand why, but one must ask... are you coming on TOO strong? This is... after all... the PM... and Im sure he's probably not even aware in the least about this accident.

That aside though, only one thing in the letter, quote: " [...] with no investigation for cause." That should be the other way around; 'with no cause for investigation.' Or at least it makes more sense in my mind that way.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Sun May 27, 2007 9:01 pm

You can read the TSB's letter to the coroner, written after the wreck was recovered here: http://www3.telus.net/public/t9232724/h ... oroner.pdf. The link is on my website. Did you watch the W-Five episode? It can still be viewed here: W-Five: A Routine Flight by following the video link on the right hand side of the page.

An investigation for cause is an investigation for the cause of the accident. There is cause to investigate for cause, if you like. To "investigate for cause" is an official term.

As for the PM being aware of the accident, he should be since he has heard from me before:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Prime Minister/Premier ministre" <pm>
To: "Kirsten Stevens" <kis>
Cc: "Lawrence Cannon, P.C., M.P." <mintc>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 7:34 AM
Subject: Office of the Prime Minister / Cabinet du Premier ministre

Dear Ms. Stevens:

On behalf of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, I would like to acknowledge your e-mail regarding an issue which falls within the responsibilities of the Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Please be assured that your comments have been carefully noted. I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your e-mail to the Minister, so that he may be made aware of your views.

Thank you for writing to the Prime Minister. For more information on the Government's initiatives, you may wish to visit the Prime Minister's Web site, at http://www.pm.gc.ca.

L.A. Lavell
Executive Correspondence Officer
for the Prime Minister's Office
Agent de correspondance
de la haute direction
pour le Cabinet du Premier ministre

>>> From : Kirsten Stevens kis.ca@telus.net
Received : 10 Feb 2007 03:35:19 PM >>>

Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington St.
Ottawa, Ont.
K1A 0A2

Dear Mr. Harper;

Nearly two years ago, I lost my husband to a terrible air taxi crash off the west coast of Vancouver Island. Barely five miles from their take-off in Campbell River and still in a well-populated area with steady marine traffic - including the Quadra-Cortes bi-hourly ferry, no emergency transmission was received. My husband was not seriously injured in the accident and survived for several hours in his floater coat before drowning. In the course of my search for answers to how this could happen, I have become more and more horrified by what I have learned about the aviation industry in Canada.

I have come to believe there was a time when Canada was a leader in aviation knowledge, and set the world standards for aviation law. Budgetary constraints, deregulation of fares, lack of oversight, mismanagement and the many difficulties involved in overseeing such a diverse landscape have resulted in our falling far behind that example we once set.

In British Columbia, it is believed by most that logging is the most dangerous profession. However, the WorkSafeBC Fatalities Reports for 1989 to 1998 shows us that the fatality rate for the air charter industry is more than twice that of logging, with a death rate of 21.5 per 10,000 people-years, compared to loggings' death rate of 9.3. Some might say things have improved over the last ten years. Yet between '89 and '98 there were 49 deaths, an average of about five deaths per year. In 2005, the year my husband (not the pilot, but a logger) was killed, there were 9 pilot deaths accepted through WorkSafeBC - nearly twice that of the previous average. Things have not gotten better.

To try to understand the aviation industry from an aviator's point of view, I became a part of an aviation forum on the internet in March of 2006. At the time, I knew very little about the industry beyond my disappointment with the Transportation Safety Board's official accident 'report' in my own case. Over the past year, I have learned that the lack of oversight and common sense I felt had been used by the regulator's over the charter operator involved in my husband's death was not unique. I have learned that across the provinces there are many who feel that this happens far too often. TCCA officials currently make and enforce interpretations of policy both individually and regionally, without any system of checks and balances. Worse still, there are several who claim to have tried to complain about the errors and misconduct of various Transport Canada Civil Aviation Officials, and have been faced with retribution instead of justice. It is believed by some, that there are several officials within the highest ranks of TCCA who have some serious transgressions to answer for. It is felt that unless these contraventions are made public, no change will take place for the better. Some of these individuals and operators are willing to come forward and have spoken privately with me, others continue to be afraid and talk only anonymously. Perhaps some of this information should be considered under the light of the newly enacted Bill C-2, the Federal Accountability Act. Currently, the TCCA runs a very large and diverse department without any third-party review system, or method by which they can truly be held accountable.

There is currently a great deal of talk in the industry about the 'new' Safety Management System, touted by Transport Canada as being the latest fix-all. While SMS is in principle an excellent tool, it will not solve many of the problems in the charter industry unless Transport Canada Civil Aviation also takes a new approach. Most safe operators' already have some kind of safety system in place, and unless Transport Canada take more consideration of the recommendations made in regard to their own oversight in the Safety in Air Taxi Operations Report of 1998, SMS will make little difference in the charter air industry. Unless Bill C-2 is acted upon and enforced, Bill C-6 , An Act to Amend the Aeronautics Act, and its many positive aspects will be ineffectual.

Adding to this problem is that of accident investigation. Because of financial constraints and the limited ability of some 220 odd TSB investigators for all Transport Canada sectors to examine the causes of all accidents in all sectors, these occupational injuries and deaths are not always investigated for cause. In my case, five men lost their lives that day, due to an easily alterable though lengthy chain of events. Yet no investigation for cause is being done, as I am told nothing new can be learned. I believe it is essential that the Worker's Compensation Boards and/or Occupational Health and Safety Boards for all the provinces and territories should be allowed to be actively involved in accident investigations where injuries or deaths of worker's have occurred.

Because the Worker's Compensation Act protects the employer from any civil action, even when gross negligence can be proven, it is essential that TCCA enforcement and criminal prosecution under Bill C-45 be exercised when such negligence is established. TCCA must also be held accountable for their infractions under Bill C-2. Some aspects of SMS and Bill C-6 do not seem to support these necessities. I, and many in the aviation industry, therefore urge you to examine these facts, and determine an appropriate course of action to protect the Canadian public.

I would be honoured to discuss these matters futher, and hope that I may look forward to a response.

Respectfully,

Kirsten Stevens

Tel: (250)287-2725
492 S. McPhedran Rd.
Campbell River, BC
V9W 5K5
kis.ca@telus.net

C.C.
Office of the Federal Ethics Commissioner
Minister of Transportation, Infrastructures and Communities, Hon. Lawrence Cannon
Minister of Labour, Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn
Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, Hon. Monte Solberg
Transport Critic, Hon. Joe Volpe and Hon. Peter Julian
Minister of Parliament, Vancouver Island North, Hon. Catherine Bell
WorksafeBC Director of Investigations, Peter Newman
Assistant Auditor General, Lyse Ricard
Standing Committee on Transportation Infrastructures and Communities, Don Bell
Liberal Party Leader, Stéphane Dion
New Democratic Party Leader, Jack Layton

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Mon May 28, 2007 8:40 am

I have just received notice that the United Steelworkers Union is supporting our petition, and will assist us ensuring a wide distribution.

If anyone has ideas or contacts at other strong lobbying groups, please let me know.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Tue May 29, 2007 7:26 am

The BC Federation of Labour has now also indicated their support.

marktheone · Post by **marktheone** » Tue May 29, 2007 9:17 am

Widow wrote:The BC Federation of Labour has now also indicated their support.

Oh good. A union, That should fix it right up.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Tue May 29, 2007 9:27 am

What it means is that we have some strong lobby groups backing our demands. That won't "fix it right up", but it will help spread the word from what many see as a "credible" source. It gives the demand more strength, don't you think?

marktheone · Post by **marktheone** » Tue May 29, 2007 1:37 pm

Widow wrote:What it means is that we have some strong lobby groups backing our demands. That won't "fix it right up", but it will help spread the word from what many see as a "credible" source. It gives the demand more strength, don't you think?

Actually I disagree. I think that it might take a supposed issue that should be non partisan and make it so.

The issue will lose a lot of steam just by having Mr. Georgetties name associated with it. A LOT of people can't stand that guy. I guess if you want to make noise that should work but if your mission has remained the same I personally would rethink that move.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Tue May 29, 2007 1:40 pm

Georgetti is the Canadian Labour Congress, not the BC Federation of Labour.

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Tue May 29, 2007 3:54 pm

I have to agree that the more support gained by organized groups, the more likely the bozos that keep their jobs based upon getting elected will respond to the pressure and the public interest and do something. Worrying about the particular organization is specious. What if the Gay and Lesbian alliance or group or friendship circle whatever threw their weight behind you (snork), would you object if they had the ability to galvanize the government?

So far, that is all good news.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Tue May 29, 2007 4:24 pm

Why not? Sign 'em up!
http://www.ngpa.org

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Wed May 30, 2007 8:52 am

So I posted this petition on PPRuNe and a first time poster claiming to be a TSB investigator popped up and called me a "troublemaker" and just about quoted Yearwood word for word.

Check it out: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=277832

If this person is a TSB investigator, then it should be clear that they have a problem with some of their staff. This guy isn't interested in improving safety. Let's hope he isn't the investigator on your accident.

Mitch Cronin · Post by **Mitch Cronin** » Wed May 30, 2007 2:58 pm

You lost me Widow. I'm sorry to say so, but I'm not going to sign your petition because I no longer understand what you're after.
Initially, I believed, because of what I read from you, that what you wanted was the engine raised so you could learn the truth about the cause of the accident, at least in part to exonerate the pilot.... Now I'm afraid your continued efforts (demands for "justice") are looking more and more like a witch hunt. ...like you're out to get someone hanged...

I remain tremendously impressed by your persistence, and what you've demonstrated you've learned about aviation safety... But I don't think a "public enquiry" will serve any useful purpose.... Those five lives cannot be recovered unfortunately... no amount of discovery or inquiry can bring them back... Learning why they're gone would be worthwhile, in my book.... but not by witch hunt.

Personally, I don't think you can ever get "justice".... In my mind, the only "justice" for you would include getting your husband back. As you know too well, that's not going to happen..... hanging anyone else for his loss won't help.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Wed May 30, 2007 3:20 pm

That's OK Mitch. I don't expect everyone here, or anywhere, to agree with our demands.

On the other hand, you do not know all the facts, as I do, of what transpired before the accident. If you read my "original" report of March 20, 2006 here: http://www3.telus.net/public/t9232724/h ... report.pdf you will learn what we knew before we even started to dig. That report was cleared by a lawyer before releasing it to the press, etc. last year. There are many, many things which we have learned since the time of that original report, which have been submitted to the coroner in our demands for an inquest. Much damning information has come from credible sources willing to testify.

The purpose of an public inquiry is not to assign blame, but to uncover facts that would otherwise remain hidden. Facts that you, and the public at large, have a right to know. We cannot keep ourselves safe without knowledge.

Edited to add: The problems associated with jurisdictional access for oversight and accident investigation need to be addressed. This is a perfect venue for it.

bose · Post by **bose** » Wed May 30, 2007 9:40 pm

hi....i have quick question....i was reading some of the stuff and I just wonder if you think maybe if the airplane had brand new floats prior to accident if it would have landed safely??

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed May 30, 2007 9:58 pm

hi....i have quick question....i was reading some of the stuff and I just wonder if you think maybe if the airplane had brand new floats prior to accident if it would have landed safely??

bose, I went back and read all your posts.

It is difficult trying to figure out where you are coming from reading your stuff so to make it a little easier to understand what exactly you are driving at why don't you tell us if you think new floats would have prevented this accident?

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Wed May 30, 2007 10:06 pm

I agree with our expert (with whom other experts also agree):

I. Float Observations/Issues

In conjunction with Transportation Safety Board of Canada Senior Air
Investigator XX in November 2006, and Transport Canada Inspectors YY and ZZ in early December 2006, I again thoroughly examined both floats off Beaver C-GAQW complete with all their attachment hardware, struts, etc. which connect the floats to the aircraft itself. I found the followinq:

a) The aft ends of both floats have almost identical upward deformation of the bottom skins surfaces, indicating that the aircraft was descending at high rate and in a tail low and wings level condition, immediately prior to landing on the water.

b) Each float is divided into five compartments with sealed water-tight bulkheads separating the compartments. Each compartment has a hath cover which is attached with approximately 57 10/32" machine screws and their associated internal nutplates. The removal of these covers allows l access to the compartments for inspection and maintenance. These hatch covers are supposed to be sealed after each removal, since without the sealer rainwater would enter the floats from above under normal conditions, and if the floats were partially submerged (in an accident situation, for instance) water would pour into the compartment and the plane would rapidly sink. In our case, we found numerous screws missing on many of the hatch covers, due to missing or rusted-out nutplates. The resulting holes were not plugged.

The three center compartments on the left-hand float had recently been pened up with the covers cleaned and freshly painted with Super Koropon epoxy/chromate primer, and with new repairs to the bottom skins in these areas. (Incidentally, we water-tested these fresh repairs to the bottom skins, and found all to slowly leak). None of these covers had any sealer applied since the fresh reprime. The type of primer on the covers was the same as that on the new bottom repairs. All the remaining hatch covers on both floats had old, cracked sealer installed. Water leakage past these seals was evident in several areas. It also appeared that some of the hatch covers had been removed and reinstalled without removing the old sealer and installing new. (None of these covers had been removed post accident and before the above-mentioned inspection). I also noted several areas where water had been leaking past the
bulkheads previous to the accident. This is shown by watermarks on both sides of the bulkhead in question. Thus, if one compartment is breached to the outside, you lose two or more compartments.

c) There were several unauthorized repairs to both floats; mainly to the deck coamings. These are the structural longitudinal fore-aft members, which form the upper inboard and outboard corners where the side skins meet the top skins. The float manufacturer allows no repairs to these members, nor is there any Federal Aviation Administration or Transport Canada approved repair. In our case, numerous repairs had been made to these members. On the right-hand float (the most badly damaged float), failures occurred in these repaired areas, definitely influencing the extent of damage to the right-hand float which occurred in the area where the front strut and spreader bar attach to the float. On the 4580 float, which was the type on C-GAQW, this attachment area is in the middle of a compartment area and not near a bulkhead. Thus, the integrity of all other members is extremely important. In our case, with numerous unapproved repairs evident in this area, the float was structurally weakened which significantly contributed to the extent of damage to the right-hand float.

d) Non-aviation approved silicone sealer was found in the badly damaged area of the right-hand float shortly after the floats were originally recovered from the ocean's floor. To me, this indicates that the right-hand float had been leaking at some previous time, and that an attempt to make a temporary repair had been made. Because of the extensive structural damage to this float in this area, I do not think it possible to determine the total influence this sealer may have had in this accident. Corrosion occurs in the area where silicone is applied next to aluminum, but it appeared to me that the failure in this compartment started in areas other than where the silicone was found.

e) The front approximately 10" of the right-hand float has been chopped off and is still missing. It appears that the aircraft's turning propeller was the chopping method. Minor smoke and fire damage were also observed in this area.

f) There did not appear to be any pre-impact damage to any of the float attach structures.

Float Discrepancies and Failure Conclusions:

a) Unapproved (old) float deck rail coaming repairs influenced the extent of damage the right-hand float sustained in the accident. This significantly influenced the time Beaver C-GAQW stayed on the surface before sinking.

b) The quantity of missing hatch cover screws and resulting holes, total lack of sealer under the three center compartment hatch covers of the left hand float, as well as a lack of good sealer under the remainder of the hatch covers on the both floats, contributed to a large extent in how fast Beaver C-GAQW sank after hitting the water surface. Had the sealer been there properly, (taking into consideration the structural damage to the floats) the aircraft probably would have stayed at the surface for at least 1 hour, thus providing a place for the occupants to get out of the cold water and rest, and a place to stand on while attracting attention for rescue. I base this judgment on two other accidents involving Beaver float planes which suffered similar float damage and which I now own. These two examples are cited below.

1. Beaver C-FOBZ crashed 10-13-2000 with the damage to both floats very close to that of Beaver C-GAQW and which floated at least twelve hours. This allowed the occupants to be safely rescued by standing/sitting on the overturned floats and yelling for attention.

2. Beaver C-FQHT also crashed May 18, 2004 with the float damage to both floats being as great as, if not worse than those of Beaver C-GAQW. In this case, the floats supported the plane on the surface for at least twenty-four hours. It was still floating when found and recovered.

I am not expert enough to say that new floats (or floats that had not had extensive repairs to the deck coamings among other things) would have prevented the accident, i.e. resulted in an incident rather than an accident. But I do believe without question that airworthy floats would have kept the aircraft afloat long enough for five men to be seen and heard yelling for help.

SAR_YQQ · Post by **SAR_YQQ** » Wed May 30, 2007 10:10 pm

While I sympathize with the families in this tragedy - I find myself wondering, much like other forum members, what the expected result will be.

Could this horrible tragedy just be chocked up to a float plane flying in really bad weather? I flew on that search - we had to divert many times to get around low weather in the area. Float planes flying at 150' AWL makes me shudder, one simple lapse in concentration and you end up in the drink - throw in poor weather and a possibly troublesome engine (oil on windscreen?) = disaster.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Wed May 30, 2007 10:37 pm

Do you need to be reminded that the search didn't start for well over four hours after the plane went down? A storm was picking up by late afternoon.

From the other experts report (the one that galvanized TCCA M&M to look into the R-985 cylinder problems and issue Service Difficulty Advisory):

the propeller control was set to fine pitch. This position according to the DHC-2 flight manual is used for take off, prior to landing, and in the event of an engine failure. Had the pilot flown into the water would the prop control not have been pulled back to 1850 rpm, the recommended cruise setting?

He did not fly into the water.

What results do I hope for? Changes in the way TCCA regulates and oversees remote ops. Changes in the protection of the rights to a safe workplace for small op pilots and the workers from other industries that they transport. Changes in the way accidents are investigated and followed up on when workplace injuries/deaths occur in jurisdictional crossover industries, and when companies operate in more than one industry. I could go on.

If you really want to understand, you could read my website, with all its links. Then you may have an inkling of how deep this all goes.

The Steelworkers and the BC Federation of Labour both think I'm on to something. So much so that they are sponsoring me to take a week long workshop at U Vic this summer.

foxmoth · Post by **foxmoth** » Thu May 31, 2007 7:51 am

After reveiwing the signatorys to the petition, I am disapointed, but not surprised by the lack of pilots and other aviation types who hvae signed up.

U would think there would be a lot of BC float pilots. There are enough questions raised about the cause of this accident that signing up should not harm anyone.

Just the usual apathy I guess.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Thu May 31, 2007 8:04 am

It has only been up for three days, and not yet well publicized. I also know for a fact there are aviation people who do not wish to put their name on the petition as they are afraid of repurcussions.
People who support us immensely, but are afraid. That just motivates me to want to see an inquiry done all the more, and it should all of you too.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu May 31, 2007 9:47 am

I also know for a fact there are aviation people who do not wish to put their name on the petition as they are afraid of repurcussions.
People who support us immensely, but are afraid. That just motivates me to want to see an inquiry done all the more, and it should all of you too.

widow, this has been the problem between the regulator and the regulated for a long time.

You can not blame people in industry for wanting to protect their jobs and assets that allow them to live normal lives and raise famlies among other things.

All the petitions on earth will not have any effect on TCCA as long as people are afraid to sign the petitions.

What is needed is a Federal investigation into the upper management of TCCA and the firing of those who support this culture of fear of the regulator.

I see there is another big problem within the RCMP that is about to become public......it stands to reason that if the RCMP has corruption problems in their upper management it would be natural to believe that TCCA could also be corrupt at the top.

Which it is.

By the way, I tried to sign your petition but it would not work for me....

So add my name to it and my E- Mail address.

Charles W. .

.@..org.

Just to show I am not afraid of TCCA.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Thu May 31, 2007 9:57 am

Cat Driver wrote: You can not blame people in industry for wanting to protect their jobs and assets that allow them to live normal lives and raise famlies among other things.

I don't blame them. In fact, it is in part for them, that I am pursuing this. It isn't just their own families many of them need to think about, but the families of those they employ. Those who have faced the wrath of TCCA in the past, are rightly loath to face it again.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu May 31, 2007 10:15 am

Those who have faced the wrath of TCCA in the past, are rightly loath to face it again.

widow, as you know no one here would know this better than I do.

The truth is you would be far safer to be at the receiving end of retrubition from the mafia than be on the receiving end of retribution from Merlin Preuss and his ilk who think they are above the law and can do whatever they want to, to anyone who makes a stand against their corrupt managers.

The mafia knows they are at risk from the law, whereas Merlin Preuss thinks he is the law.

Maybe, just maybe this effort of yours will catch the attention of Harper and his government and he will recognize the danger his government faces if the public really gets a look at how TCCA really goes about their business.

Then again maybe Harper is powerless to take on someone like Preuss.

It would be nice to know the truth wouldn't it?