NavAir Grounded in YYC???

colonel lingus · Post by **colonel lingus** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 2:24 pm

I believe that BTDT has hit the nail on the head. It's not just DB thats livin' large, have a look at the owners. They live in mansions on the coast and bloat to everybody how great their life if while skimping on maintenance. I know for a fact that the maintenance is garbage there. How you ask? because it was said by someone from that department that they cut corners to get the airplane in the air. Altipenis......don't kid yourself. Either you work there or know someone who does....me too. So quit the "its a great company bulls@#t". For the good of aviation safety, I for one hope they are gone!

4low · Post by **4low** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 2:37 pm

I can honestly say that NavAir has been a good company to work for...the planes look like garbage but I have only met 2 people that flew them and didn't have faith. THe guys in calgary broke down and our ops manager flew a 'ho....i think it was CAI, yyj to yyc at night...if i was cutting corners on my maintanance i wouldn't be flying over the rockies at night....one of the owners flew a ho home from yyc...i think it was NAV. If they can work on them and then fly them, i feel pretty good about it too. One of they other owners lets his son fly...if i was sening out flying coffins. my son would not be in one of them. NavAir doesn't pay too well to start but they pay on time and they give you what they say they will. All the boys from yyc flew the planes home over the week. NavAir bought them all westjet tickets and got them a u-haul to get their stuff back to vr. Thats pretty good isn't it?

bumffs · Post by **bumffs** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 3:15 pm

You cannot be serious,they flew aircraft that had been grounded at night over the rocks .
No wonder the insurance rates keep going up if people are taking risks like that and TC does what?
Ferry permits ????
As for the thought of someone to fly me after they take risks like that is scary and you guys think Americans are stupid.
Try flying a plane with obvious corrosion issues in the states and see how long you maintain your privilage's to fly.
On a serious note if those guys fly something that ugly ,I would not want to meet their girfriends while the lights are on.After all beauty is only a light switch away,now who knows what to do about the stench......

ice ice baby · Post by **ice ice baby** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 3:48 pm

they flew aircraft that had been grounded at night over the rocks.

Something tells me that the aircraft they flew back to YVR or YYJ were not grounded anymore (or they got permits from TC.) Maybe some of the things that they got grounded for are with regards to commercial flights and not private ones, so if it was a non-revenue flight they might have been able to fly it. Bumffs something tells me that Transport would be all over them if they flew grounded aircraft, especially since it sounds like they were all over in the day(s?) before they got grounded too.

On another note it says a lot about a company when former employees who just lost there jobs through no fault of there own are still defending the company they used to work for.

BTDT what is this

alleged criminal negligence

that you speak of. Care to share?

colonel lingus · Post by **colonel lingus** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 4:04 pm

Your right the owner does let his son of a bitch fly there. Only he flys the Metro. The only aircraft that gets all the attention. They make sure that thing is safe to fly and let the others go. So why doesn't the owner son fly the Navajo?....exactly, he'd be risking his sons life.

bumffs · Post by **bumffs** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 4:09 pm

ice ice baby you must hit your head on the dock when you fell off your daddies yacht if you think that there is any enforcement in that part of the country,
When you get out of rehab just look at what is being flown in the west and a blind idiot can see that ramp checks are not done.Or the question of aircraft with corrosion being flown would not come up .
I dare any one of the brave lads to fly anyone of those aircraft sans paint to the states and see how long it takes before the handcuffs come out.
Whoops sorry did i make the assumption that such a tight group of men were hetro !!!!!!

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 5:12 pm

" ice ice baby you must hit your head on the dock when you fell off your daddies yacht if you think that there is any enforcement in that part of the country,

When you get out of rehab just look at what is being flown in the west and a blind idiot can see that ramp checks are not done.Or the question of aircraft with corrosion being flown would not come up . "

We are getting far afield of reality here.

Enforcement is not dependant on ramp checks. Enforcement should be conducted over a broad range of checking for compliance, such as if these aircraft are so dilapidated that it is unsafe to fly them, why did so many pilots keep flying them day and night in all kinds of weather?

Now if someone were to suggest that pilots are afraid to say anything to TC or the company I would be willing to buy that.

And we still have no real idea exactly what is going on between TC and Navair.

I culled this gem from the above because it has some merit.

" if you think that there is any enforcement in that part of the country, "

M&M in the Pacific Region is a disgrase to aviation under its present management.

. . · Post by **. .** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 5:42 pm

I think 200hr wonders not getting a direct entry shot into a place like cariboo is a very small price to pay if it means safer planes on the west coast.

airliner · Post by **airliner** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 5:46 pm

This is turning into a nasty post. I worked there and shared the same passion of the job, and thought that Navair was the best. Once i left and saw how green the grass was. I realised what kinda of crap we actually flew. (Even the Metro is junk)
Yes Navair does give a good start to beginer pilots, but is is the worst job i have ever had. The only solid part about it was the friends i met. I wish the people i know, that are still there the best of luck.
Its about time TC finially put a stop to one of the most dangerous companies out there.

rigpiggy · Post by **rigpiggy** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 5:48 pm

J31 wrote:
The aircraft was at 33000 ft 66 miles from Halifax when the first hint of smoke was noticed by the crew. Normally you would need 90 some miles to get down thus why they had to circle. 14 minutes later the controller lost all contact with the flight and the FDR recorded massive electrical system failures. 21 minutes later the aircraft hit the water out of control. Anyone that has experience with this type of aircraft knows that it would take you 20 minutes from that altitude to get on the ground if you rushed.

with an emergency descent I think you would find descent rates greater than 4000 fpm, at 420 kt you cover 7 miles/minute even with slowing for vno they should have made it there in under 15 minute

As for dumping fuel, if they had landed with numerous systems failed they would have overrun the runway. Quoted from the report: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/199 ... _06_21.asp “Considering all of the factors, the SR 111 landing would likely have required more runway than the 8 800 feet available on Runway 06 at the Halifax International Airport.”

Going off the end at 50 kts is still eminently better than hitting the ocean at 200, ask Air France about that

True the industry has learned some things from the Swiss Air tragedy with the focus now being get things on the ground ASAP. It is quite clear that this crew did not waist much time and simply ran out of time and luck.

Yes Industry has changed due to SR111, hopefully for the better, but then again dryden, improved our lot with the clean wing concept, any accident has lessons to be learned from it, but common sense, must still prevail

airliner · Post by **airliner** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 5:51 pm

OOPS i forgot to mention; with only 1500ish under your belt wont get the jobs you are thinking of. Navair isnt that well respected and there a lot more people out there with out jobs, with more time and far more experence nationally.
So try some humble pie. A job will be easier to get with out that NAV-chip on your sholder, and i hope you like it up north

bumffs · Post by **bumffs** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:25 pm

Does this have any connection to the fire and crash at Comox ?

airliner · Post by **airliner** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:37 pm

doubt it. The crash was actually a lycoming AD what wasnt followed by the previous owner.

. . · Post by **. .** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:50 pm

You can get grandfathered through AD compliance because the previous owner didn't? I find that very hard to believe? Anyone with any kind of experience as an AME care to comment?

Axial Flow · Post by **Axial Flow** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:56 pm

Did a report ever come out to what happened in Comox ?

bumffs · Post by **bumffs** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:59 pm

Oh that is unfortunate for the pilots who perhaps thought that all that was wrong was the cosmetic appearance.
If you ever buy an airplne make sure to get pre-purchase inspection done by a reputable AME/AMO they will be able to tell you if all the AD's SB have been done.It does not take long to do .it does not require a PHD
IF what airliner say's is true the excuse for the accident is shamefull as it could have been prevented with due dilligence at the time of purchase and at the first maintenance interval .Not having access to any of the aircraft documents I cannot comment any further than that.

airliner · Post by **airliner** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:28 pm

Just so i dont get caught up in a cross fire. I dont work there and it couldnt care less to what happens to the company.

As far as the accident in comox is concerned Im only spelling out third party info for a reliable source.

Dockjock · Post by **Dockjock** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:31 pm

That an owner will fly an airplane is a very poor indication of whether or not it is safe or well maintained. Often they are the biggest believers of their own bullshit, and have strayed so far from reality that they don't even remember what a safe airplane really is.

J.P.WISER · Post by **J.P.WISER** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:53 pm

AD's must be complied with by the time listed in the AD, maybe a/f time or dated time. No matter who operates the a/c the owner is responsible for compliance. If you bought it and it had not been complied with then you are now responsible.

If that is the AD on the crank shafts it was kindda confussing, but that is no reason to not comply, you either changed the engine or it was good to fly.(not sure if this was the AD or not)

beentheredonethat! · Post by **beentheredonethat!** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:19 pm

I agree with Cat Driver..."M&M under it's present(past actually) management is a disgrace to aviation" That NAVAIR survived audit after audit and multiple ramp checks in this (pacific) region smells of ...coersion incompetance,indifference? I KNOW that NAVAIRs attitude when ramp checked was not of using it(the ramp check) to id(REAL!) systemic safety issues for the betterment of the companies safety, but one of belligerent"I know better" hostility towards TC. But karma is a strange thing, the lawyers for the deceased pilots will make sure that the whole sordid tale of the last 15 or so years will come out.
Kudos to the calgary M&M guys for calling these idiots on there horseshit as they have been getting away with it so long that they actualy believed it!!!
Thanks

oldtimer · Post by **oldtimer** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:04 pm

I am not an AME but I have been up close and personal with AD's and the mechanics who fix things. Years ago, a company had a Lear 24 that was imported from Germany by another company and a sharp eyed TC inspector found an AD that had not been complied with, years after both the compliance date and when the airplane was imported. The AME left holding the bag was the last signature in the log book. The AME was able to sidestep enforcement because the AD was complied with before the next flight and the company went to bat with the AME. It appears that TC says the last signature in the book is the person who had the ability and opertunity to correct the shortcoming. A bit unfair but that is the law.

haligoner · Post by **haligoner** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:54 pm

airliner wrote:OOPS i forgot to mention; with only 1500ish under your belt wont get the jobs you are thinking of. Navair isnt that well respected and there a lot more people out there with out jobs, with more time and far more experence nationally.
So try some humble pie. A job will be easier to get with out that NAV-chip on your sholder, and i hope you like it up north

Sorry to burst your bubble, but as for "not well respected", here is a partial list of employers that have many, many ex-Navairians working for them:
Air Canada, Air Canada Jazz, (Nova/Air On/Regional/Air BC back in the day), Westjet, Canjet, Flightcraft, Cathay Pacific, Air China, etc, etc, etc...they can't be THAT lacking respect..I guess..

doubt it. The crash was actually a lycoming AD what wasnt followed by the previous owner.

Uh...no. The ENGINE FIRE may have been caused by an AD or whatnot not being complied with. The actual crash happened because the aircraft was flying too slowly to produce enough lift to sustain flight. This is commonly called a stall. This is a subtle but important distinction. The AD in itself did not bring the aircraft down. You can manage risk with regulation but you cannot remove it.

I don't wish to speak ill of the departed, and that is not my intent. But an engine fire can happen for any number of reasons, and whatever the reason, it's still crucial to KEEP FLYING THE AIRCRAFT! A fire is probably the worst thing that can happen inflight, but it is not necessarily unsurvivable!

. . · Post by **. .** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 11:19 pm

haligoner: tell us more about this thing you call "stall". Saying the AD didn't bring the plane down IF it was responsible for the fire is simply idiotic. The whole start of the chain thing no? Perhaps you haven't flown a whole lot on PA-31's. If you lose an engine and you're anywhere near gross, you sir are in a controlled descent at very best.

altiplano · Post by **altiplano** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 11:27 pm

Salsa · Post by **Salsa** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:16 am

With all do respect....lets not talk about the crash!!!! I know for a FACT nobody here will know what happened!!!! Say what you want about NavAir but leave this topic OUT!!!!
NavAir had this coming long before.

NavAir Grounded in YYC???

Just for once...