Fatal Crash - Gabriola Island - Dec 10, 2019

[pelmet]

C-FQYW, a privately operated Piper Aerostar PA60-602P, departed Bishop Airport (KBIH), CA for a
flight to Nanaimo (CYCD), BC with 1 pilot and 2 passengers on board. At approximately 1803 PST
the pilot informed ATC that they had a mechanical issue and required a new heading. ATC supplied
several instructions attempting to assist the aircraft, which was in IMC. Shortly after, the aircraft lost
contact with ATC and struck terrain into a forested area on Gabriola Island, 8.5nm N of CYCD. The
aircraft sustained a post impact fire; the ELT did not alert. The 3 persons on board were fatally
injured.

[L39Guy]

The TSB has issued its report on this accident - looks like another attitude indicator failure but this aircraft had no back-up. Eerily similar to the Tindi accident - AI fails, airplane crashes.

With peanut gyros so inexpensive, surely aircraft like this accident one would invest in a back-up if you are going to fly IFR.

[Jean-Pierre]

Sounds like a a partial panel situation with the low weather being a factor. A graveyard spiral is a spiraling dive that can happen when you become disoriented, and when you have little or no visual reference to the horizon. Unfortunately, lots of graveyard spirals end with the airplane impacting the ground in a high rate-of-descent, banked turn like in this case.

PDW...is that you?

No apology necessary

[Squaretail]

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repo ... p0176.html

Lots of holes in the cheese lined up.

[ahramin]

I wonder if Alex knew he was flying an RCAP approach. With Foreflight it's not always obvious that an ops spec is required for a given approach.

[karmutzen]

Non-commercial operations can fly RCAP at will. Commercial ops need an ops spec amendment to their AOC.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Non-commercial operations can fly RCAP at will. Commercial ops need an ops spec amendment to their AOC.

This statement is not correct. Do not use an RCAP procedure unless you have the required Special Authorization

[milotron]

I wonder if Alex knew he was flying an RCAP approach. With Foreflight it's not always obvious that an ops spec is required for a given approach.

What is interesting is that if you read the report in detail, Alex was right seat. The left seat pilot had no me or IFR rating and 320 hours. I don’t think he had a second set of flight instruments on the right side of the plane. He may have had to try coaching his less experienced left seater in how to react or view the turn coordinator and DG from across the cockpit for partial panel.

Just speculating.

[pelmet]

Does anybody find it unusual/hazardous that the King KI 256 FCI(artificial horizon) has no indicator to let the pilot know that the instrument has failed. Take a look at it in the link below. It is a serious IFR instrument. I am surprised that an instrument like this would even be allowed. Somehow, I assume that most artificial horizons have some sort of failure flag, but maybe it is just the power source itself. Not sure now.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=king+ki2 ... NsXCE80K-M

[Squaretail]

What is interesting is that if you read the report in detail, Alex was right seat. The left seat pilot had no me or IFR rating and 320 hours. I don’t think he had a second set of flight instruments on the right side of the plane. He may have had to try coaching his less experienced left seater in how to react or view the turn coordinator and DG from across the cockpit for partial panel.

Just speculating.

Indeed. The type of approach doesn't seem to matter since the problem stems from disorientation. One good pilot in the left seat may have come through this. One good pilot trying to manage a not as good pilot in the left seat would be tough for anyone to do. Flying instruments from the right seat with instruments on the left is extra difficult. Doing it perhaps partial panel more so. Possibly making a partial panel recovery if the less experienced pilot perhaps got disoriented an even bigger challenge, and god forbid if this was dual instruction in progress, with the additional challenge of changing who's controlling things.

[rookiepilot]

A lot of flight instructors have very little actual IFR experience. I know when I did my instrument rating they wouldn't fly in IMC.

[L39Guy]

Non-commercial operations can fly RCAP at will. Commercial ops need an ops spec amendment to their AOC.

This statement is false: only commercial operators with an OPS SPEC to fly GPS approaches may use these RCAP procedures.

Procedures that go into the RCAP on the surface look like any other RNAV approach. There are generally two issues that cause them to be in the RCAP and not the CAP. These are:
- deviation to the design criteria for instrument approaches (TP 308) and a non-standard missed approach climb gradient (> 200 ft/nm) is the most common deviation
- the aerodrome does not comply with any known aerodrome standard for obstacle clearance in and around the runway area (think of a runway cut out of the trees versus a runway with no obstacles in the approach/departure path or abeam the runway.

Transport Canada recently made changes to the aerodrome standards for registered aerodromes that will see many of the approaches go from the CAP to the RCAP for the reason I noted above. You will also see many identical approaches where there is a CAP approach for Category A/B aircraft and an RCAP approach for Category C/D aircraft. The runway meets the standards for a Category A/B aircraft (hence it is in a CAP) but it does not meet the standards for Category C/D aircraft (and hence it goes into the RCAP). Soon, the CAP and RCAP will be the size of New York City phone books but fortunately now its all electronic.

Transport Canada's changes to the registered aerodrome standards was ill-conceived and poorly researched and it going to cause a lot of grief at a lot of airports for a lot of pilots, both private and commercial.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Non-commercial operations can fly RCAP at will. Commercial ops need an ops spec amendment to their AOC.

This statement is false: only commercial operators with an OPS SPEC to fly GPS approaches may use these RCAP procedures.

Sorry for the thread drift but in the interests of accuracy, private operators that hold a Private Operators Registration Document can also apply for approval to fly RCAP approaches.

[valleyboy]

Does anybody find it unusual/hazardous that the King KI 256 FCI(artificial horizon) has no indicator to let the pilot know that the instrument has failed. Take a look at it in the link below. It is a serious IFR instrument. I am surprised that an instrument like this would even be allowed. Somehow, I assume that most artificial horizons have some sort of failure flag, but maybe it is just the power source itself. Not sure now.

There are more aircraft flying out there like this than not. They have loss of power flags but for a gyro failure while the instrument is still powered very few will tell you that. This is why aircraft have comparator systems that monitors instruments from both sides. Light aircraft rarely have these, sh1t they don't even have a full instrument panel on the right side.

[L39Guy]

Non-commercial operations can fly RCAP at will. Commercial ops need an ops spec amendment to their AOC.

This statement is false: only commercial operators with an OPS SPEC to fly GPS approaches may use these RCAP procedures.

Sorry for the thread drift but in the interests of accuracy, private operators that hold a Private Operators Registration Document can also apply for approval to fly RCAP approaches.

You are correct that private operators, i.e. 604 operators with an OPS SPEC, can do GPS approaches as well as CAR’s 700 operators with an OPS SPEC. At one time the OPS SPEC page spelled that out.

But aircraft that are not flown as 702, 703, 704, 705 and 604 cannot do RCAP (edited from GPS earlier) approaches.

[ahramin]

L39guy, you don't appear to know what an ILS is, what an RCAP approach is, or what a GPS approach is. The ILS approach into Nanaimo is an RCAP approach and cannot be flown without an OPS SPEC. It might be a good idea to review the AIM before commenting further.

[valleyboy]

L39guy, you don't appear to know what an ILS is, what an RCAP approach is, or what a GPS approach is. The ILS approach into Nanaimo is an RCAP approach and cannot be flown without an OPS SPEC. It might be a good idea to review the AIM before commenting further.

I think we need a distinction here. It maybe not permitted by the rules but nothing stopping anyone from actually doing the approach. They will get away with it unless there is something that attracts attention. Even then if it's an incident rather than an accident a crafty pilot can dodge the bullet. ATC will always issue the approach clearance. Unfortunately, many times the rules only come into play after the fact.

[Big Pistons Forever]

L39guy, you don't appear to know what an ILS is, what an RCAP approach is, or what a GPS approach is. The ILS approach into Nanaimo is an RCAP approach and cannot be flown without an OPS SPEC. It might be a good idea to review the AIM before commenting further.

I think we need a distinction here. It maybe not permitted by the rules but nothing stopping anyone from actually doing the approach. They will get away with it unless there is something that attracts attention. Even then if it's an incident rather than an accident a crafty pilot can dodge the bullet. ATC will always issue the approach clearance. Unfortunately, many times the rules only come into play after the fact.

I don’t see the point of the above statement. Flying an approach which you are not authorized is operating in contravention of the regulations, just like flying over gross, with unsecured cargo, without a valid license etc etc.

The approach’s in the RCAP are restricted because they don’t meet the certification requirements. To mitigate the risks imposed by the additional requirements like minimum climb gradients, steep approach paths, etc etc extra training and pilot and operator certification as well as sometimes additional equipment requirements are required.

If you chose to fly an RCAP with out all that anyway you are both operating illegally and IMO being stupid

[valleyboy]

I don’t see the point of the above statement. Flying an approach which you are not authorized is operating in

Regardless you can be in denial but it happens often. I'm not condoning it just saying the regs are practically useless and very little fall out to those who choose to ignore them. Instead of burying our heads in the sand we should be aware it happens. I think we are past the school boy age and can accept the facts of life. Denial is a silly thing, just look at the world around us at the present time.

[pelmet]

I don’t see the point of the above statement. Flying an approach which you are not authorized is operating in

Regardless you can be in denial but it happens often. I'm not condoning it just saying the regs are practically useless and very little fall out to those who choose to ignore them. Instead of burying our heads in the sand we should be aware it happens. I think we are past the school boy age and can accept the facts of life. Denial is a silly thing, just look at the world around us at the present time.

Reminds me of all those legal circling only approaches up north that were safer than the straight in ones that didn’t exist.