Westwind

[North Shore]

And the chances are we will be no closer to knowing the true cause than the day it happened.

That's pure bullshit, Cat, and you know it. You're saying that in over 50% of the cases, the TSB gets it wrong? (Compared to a bunch of armchair experts who haven't been to the scene, and who, in most cases, were 100s, if not 1000s of miles away from where the accident occurred..)

[Cat Driver]

That's pure bullshit, Cat, and you know it. You're saying that in over 50% of the cases, the TSB gets it wrong?

Where did I say in over 50% of the cases they get it wrong?

I personally do not trust their reports from my own personal experience with them.

It was my experience that they can politically motivated and will tailor their final report to fit a political agenda.

I am well aware you are a moderator here and that does not in the least concern me because if you wish to make an issue of my opinion I am willing to relate my experience with them in an investigation of a fatal accident they interrogated me about and then completely disregarded my testimony.

Sure their reports can be valid, but they are not beyond colouring outside of the lines at times.

Remember I am well aware of the laws of liable and I am not stupid enough to get caught in that trap.

So bottom line I personally do not trust their reports, because of my own experience with them.

[Illya Kuryakin]

And the chances are we will be no closer to knowing the true cause than the day it happened.

That's pure bullshit, Cat, and you know it. You're saying that in over 50% of the cases, the TSB gets it wrong? (Compared to a bunch of armchair experts who haven't been to the scene, and who, in most cases, were 100s, if not 1000s of miles away from where the accident occurred..)

Hey North Shore, the issues I have with TSB reports is the length of time they often take to state the obvious. Obviously, here on avcanada, we speculate every time there’s a mishap. Out on a limb I go by stating the gang here often have it figured out within a page or two of speculation.....2-3 years ahead of TSB. Our neighbors to the south, the NTSB, often releases thoughts on accident causes as they become apparent, not waiting for the finished product hits the press. This often gives the industry a “heads up” and perhaps prevents replays through education. Our TSB are ostriches.
Illya

[pelmet]

Photos of the crash show flaps are still set at 15 degrees.

You might be looking at the wrong photos.

https://cdni.rt.com/files/oldfiles/news ... men.si.jpg

My advice still stands. If somehow caught in a situation like this, retract flaps cautiously.

"At 01:34:00 at height 640 ft and speed of 139 kt the flaps retraction was started. At 01:34:08 after the retraction had been completed, at 690 ft and at a speed of 150 kt uncommanded development of right bank started. At 01:34:10 the A/P was disengaged. The bank angle reached around 40° to the right within 3 s and after that was counteracted by ailerons and rudder deflection."

https://reports.aviation-safety.net/201 ... VP-BYZ.pdf

Chris was stating that westwinds flaps are still set in the picture, meaning that the accident you brought up about retraction, has no validity to this accident.

Thanks,

I misunderstood. However, it is still good information to keep in mind.

[co-joe]

I see a machine on its wheels largely intact and all survived. I'd just like to say whatever the investigation turns up you know these boys did their best to save it. You know they didn't stop flying till every last piece stopped moving, and 25 people are alive because of that.

If the account on TV by that Dene guy that the engines both quit turns out to be accurate, then you know this was a pilot's worst nightmare scenario. I sure wouldn't want to operate a 30 000 Lb turboprop out of 3800' of gravel in bad wx, but that's the job, and that's what they do. Margin for error is small. Luckily the trees were small too.

I hope all the good people at Westwind are able to come through this ok and the operation gets safer because of it.

[North Shore]

That's pure bullshit, Cat, and you know it. You're saying that in over 50% of the cases, the TSB gets it wrong?

Where did I say in over 50% of the cases they get it wrong?

I personally do not trust their reports from my own personal experience with them.

It was my experience that they can politically motivated and will tailor their final report to fit a political agenda.

I am well aware you are a moderator here and that does not in the least concern me because if you wish to make an issue of my opinion I am willing to relate my experience with them in an investigation of a fatal accident they interrogated me about and then completely disregarded my testimony.

Sure their reports can be valid, but they are not beyond colouring outside of the lines at times.

Remember I am well aware of the laws of liable and I am not stupid enough to get caught in that trap.

So bottom line I personally do not trust their reports, because of my own experience with them.

You are correct, you did not say 50% - I took your phrase "chances are" to read that way. BUt, if I'm reading the TSB website correctly, they are investigating (or have investigated) ~230 incidents so far this year, and I find it very hard to believe that they're going to get it wrong even 10% of the time

What political agenda does an accident investigation team have? My opinion of it would be that it's a "just the facts Ma'am" report, with the bottom line of finding cause, not blame, and trying to avoid a repeat.

And how does my mod status have anything to do with this, again?

Ilya: Agreed. It would be nice if the reports were a little faster coming out. OTOH, take a bit more time and get it right..

[rookiepilot]

North Shore:

I am told on other threads here, the operator involved in an accident, has "input" into the final report before it is released.

I do not understand why that is.

Is it like that in the US as well?

Curious. And why, too

[photofly]

Parties involved in an accident are given the courtesy of seeing a draft copy of the report in advance of publication and invited to comment. The do not get “input”. The TSB website states:


“After the examination and analysis phase, an investigation report is drafted. The Board reviews the draft report: it may approve it, ask for minor amendments, or return it for further work. Once the draft report is approved, it is sent to designated reviewers on a confidential basis for comment.

A designated reviewer may be any person—including a company, corporation, manufacturer or association—who, in the opinion of the Board, will contribute to the completeness and accuracy of the report.”


The Board considers all the designated reviewers’ comments and amends the report as required.

In the US the NTSB states “ Parties do not participate in the analysis and report writing phase of NTSB investigations; however, they are invited to submit their proposed findings of cause and proposed safety recommendations, which are made part of the public docket. ”

[ipilot54]

My guess is, TC is at Westwind right now, or soon will be. A National "Audit" happens after accidents like this. Automatic.

All said and done though, wow, it is a miracle that no one lost their life.

[Cat Driver]

What political agenda does an accident investigation team have? My opinion of it would be that it's a "just the facts Ma'am" report, with the bottom line of finding cause, not blame, and trying to avoid a repeat.

North Shore , when a Government body refuses to accept concrete provable facts relating to a fatal accident what other reason would there be besides political?

Ineptness?

Ignorance of the subject they are supposed to be experts on?

My involvement with the TSB was requested not offered, they chose to ignore what was almost beyond doubt part of the cause of the inability of the crew to recover from a loss of control, spin accident.

I had suggested that they have a warning added to a STC that the airplane had done to it that would warn the crew that in the wrong circumstance one of the flight controls could aerodynamically lock and recovery was not possible unless the crew knew how to recover from it.

Now to this comment by you:

That's pure bullshit, Cat, and you know it.

You are basically calling me a liar and I am not prepared to accept such a comment from anyone.

[Cliff Jumper]

You're right Cat, definitely political. Obviously trying to protect the STC holder, which was a huge party donor. What other explanation could there possibly be?

Break.

Rookiepilot, its ICAO Annex 13, section 6.3.1 and 6.3.2.

https://goo.gl/pTPGRA

[Schooner69A]

Cat:

Cat:

Years ago, we lost a CF-5D because the battery switch wasn't on. (Long story, immaterial here)

The recommendation was to put an over-ride switch in the back seat. The decision was not to do so because of... Well, I don't know why not. Complexity? Money? Don't know.

The T-33 has such a capability and I, and many others, thought the decision not to replicate a switch in the back seat of the CF-5D was stupid.

Well, stupid or not, the same situation never happened again and we never lost another CF-5 in the same way.

Now, I don't know the circumstances of your situation, but the "Powers-that-be" at the time may have had similar thoughts. Has there ever been an accident or incident since that time with that aircraft?

[Cat Driver]

Now, I don't know the circumstances of your situation, but the "Powers-that-be" at the time may have had similar thoughts. Has there ever been an accident or incident since that time with that aircraft?

No there has not been another accident with that type of aircraft because it was a PBY5A waterbomber with a Davis Tail STC that would aerodynamically lock in the full rudder position if it were in a certain attitude and full rudder was applied and they have not been used in decades.

I had it happen to me and fortunately it was with a valley below me and I had the altitude to recover, which required you to fully stall the airplane to relieve the aerodynamic force on the rudder.

The crew who died did not and we know exactly what happened because another crew was holding above them waiting for their turn to drop on the fire and both pilots described seeing exactly the same behavior of the airplane.

There is a bit more to what transpired during my interaction with the TSB and T.C. and the Prov. Government and my company management and believe me there was political pressure involved.

Naturally there are posters here who doubt what I am saying and that is just fine with me if they think their Government officials are truthful beyond any doubt.

Anyhow I have given my opinion and I am finished with this.

[Cliff Jumper]

What year was this poltical cover-up?

[Cat Driver]

What year was this poltical cover-up?

What possible difference does that make?

[Cliff Jumper]

A fair bit, I'd say.

2010 = very important... those people are likely still in position.

1947 = not very relevant... those people are likely no longer in a position of influence.

[Cat Driver]

O.K. fair question.

It is highly unlikely anyone involved in that situation would still be working, as far as I can recall they all were older than me and I am 82 and have been retired for a lot of years.

It was in the early seventies.

[howey]

If I'm not mistaken the TSB didn't exist in the 70's, the organization was created in 1990....so how could they have been involved in a cover up (political influence) back then?

[Cliff Jumper]

You know, in the seventies, accidents were investigated by TC.... actually until 1984 I think.

So, yes you were right, not independent at all. They reported directly to the minister of transport.

It's is different now.

[RatherBeFlying]

I witnessed a fatal glider accident. The TSB report was significantly at odds to what I saw and I ended up writing my own analysis.

[pelmet]

If I'm not mistaken the TSB didn't exist in the 70's, the organization was created in 1990....so how could they have been involved in a cover up (political influence) back then?

I knew that one was coming. I believe that it was TC investgatingin those days.

[170 to xray]

Many years ago I had lunch with a retired accident investigator. I asked how he liked working for the the NTSB. His respones was, "I didn't work for the NTSB, I worked for IACO."

He explained to me that when an accident happens 'teams' of investigators are sent to investigate the accident. Engine manufacturers, tire manufacturers, air plane manufacturers, avionics manufacturer..you get the point...they all send investigators to the accident. He said that they were all there to investigate their components, as experts to help the NTSB.

He also said that they were there to show that it wasn't their component that contributed to the accident, unofficially of course.

He was there to represent the pilots. He felt that the experts from industry were too eager to blame the two dead pilots and call it pilot error.

Is any of it true? I have know idea, but that's how it was told to me.

[Big Pratt]

Is there a way to filter out user's posts on this forum?
I left years ago because of the BS and incredible signal to noise ratio of cat's post and came back to read up on this accident, only to find out that the troll is still here...

🤬

[Cat Driver]

Well Big Pratt you should just not read my posts and try and live with just seeing my name there.

I bet if you really try you could do it.

By the way I see you were interested in Gyroplanes.

I have a FAA Commercial Gyroplane License and lots of time flying many types, I used to train people on them.

Or do you still think that everything I post is trolling?

['97 Tercel]

https://saskatoon.ctvnews.ca/at-least-8 ... -1.3723411

I can't believe nobody died in this crash...amazing.