Crash report finally released

[cyyz]

cyyz....Okay...must have missed your point.

No we can blame it on anything we want, it was bad piloting if we blame it on the poor walk around, flying over weight, flying fatigued...

But to blame the airline industry, the airline industry is in tathers because of the consumer.. Everyone blaming it on clapped out this and clapped out that, well guess what joe schmoe(consumer not you doc) if you weren't such a cheap little pr*ck you wouldn't be flying in clapped out crap...

I'd like to say oh he was under duress to fly the plane(had flown for the company to LAX), but he wasn't he was with his g/f... c'est la vie... But to blame The airline, cessna, et-al, screw off....

[Ali G]

It is very clear that the pilot had the ability to make the right decisions and chose not to.

[CID]

But to blame the airline industry, the airline industry is in tathers because of the consumer.. Everyone blaming it on clapped out this and clapped out that, well guess what joe schmoe(consumer not you doc) if you weren't such a cheap little pr*ck you wouldn't be flying in clapped out crap...

Consumers looking for a deal are a constant. Ever been to Wal-Mart cyyz? Ever bought something for a discount or on sale?

Sorry to have to break it to you, but its not the consumer. It's the operator that sets the prices to undercut the competition. The consumer will always gravitate to the best deal regardless of whether it costs $129 or $12,000 to fly YYZ-YVR.

So who are the cheap little pricks that are ruining the industry? It ain't the consumer. Don't blame them for slimy operators.

[cyyz]

Consumers looking for a deal are a constant. Ever been to Wal-Mart cyyz? Ever bought something for a discount or on sale?

So who are the cheap little pricks that are ruining the industry? It ain't the consumer. Don't blame them for slimy operators.

The consumer will always gravitate to the best deal regardless

Ever look at the "tags" "made in CHINA" the first thing you here about most products bought at walmart within a week after they break, "friggin walmart sold me a piece of crap."

Sorry, but it's the consumer in that case.. Like I said, if you want to shop walmart or regency, that's "okay" but please don't whine and complain when something goes wrong...

The Corporations are at fault for enticing them, but it's the sole decision of the consumer whether he wants a safe and reliable product or the discounted version....

In the land of frivolous lawsuits and slimy lawyers the consumer is protected even though they were the stupid ones, and the corporation is just stuck their staring with a blank face on their look with "wtf" written on their foreheads....

[. .]

cpl_atc:

I personally believe that the important regulation changes coming from this accident investigation points to underlaying saftey issues that previously hand't been addressed.

I believe you'd be horrifed to know how many of the fights all over canada were going out overweight based on standard passenger weights. How many times do think caravans or PC-12's took 9 obese people (i recall quite a few larger pop and chip mongers up north)? This happened every day all over canada. To single out one pilot for using standard weights when they weren't representivie is quite unfair. Prior to this accident I had never known any pilot at any operation to use anything but standard weights regardless of passenger weight or appearance.

Perhaps you entered 70* operations after the changes to standard weight came to light, or perhaps you've yet to enter line flying? If so, soon you'll realize that real world operations aren't quite as clear as this accident investigation makes them out to be.

I suggest you read future accident reports and try to learn from the mistakes that have cost others their lives. There's no need for you to arm chair quarterback how things should have been.

[cyyz]

If the operator cannot safely offer the service at the advertised price it is the operator's responsibility to withdraw the offer of service. The courts would conclude the same.


Therefore, I stand by my original statement. Assuming the TSB's figures are correct, there can *NEVER* be any justification, under any circumstances, for choosing to depart 1,200lbs+ overweight in a Caravan.

I thought the weight was 560+ but whatever, I understand, you expect someone to take responsibility, and although the company hired the pilot, he was TRAINED to TC standards and to SOP specs...

Don't be blaming the farking corporation on this one... Bad call on the PIC, this one wasn't him flying out a clapped out van, this one wasn't him being forced to fly over weight, or forced to fly in ice or forced to fly over duty time....

He acted on his own accord and the company shouldn't be liable, not this time.

And again, the consumers are to blame, if those two pax noticed ice and thought "hey something ain't right" they shouldn't have gone...

Or if some of them realised, "hey we're fat farks" maybe we should take 2 planes, and maybe if the company had been allowed to weigh them and charge them each for two seats, they'd been forced to fly two planes, but had that happened the company would have been sued for "discrimination."

An aside,

Endless is correct, standard weights have been changed because of this, hurray.... And I'm surprised LH(?) the advocate of anti-1-engine op's isn't here either throwing in his 2 cents about how TC hasn't stopped single engine ops... But whatever, some lessons have been learnt...
Changes made... And all we can do is learn from these "accidents."

[CID]

If I recall correctly, the issue of standard pax weights came to light after this crash:

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/AAR0401.htm

The crew of the Raytheon/Beech 1900 lost pitch control due to misrigging. During the investigation, it was noted that the passengers were much heftier than the average weights used in WB calculations.

This prompted a temporary mandatory "weigh-in" of all passengers on Beech 1900 and similar aircraft until a new average pax weight was forumlated.

By the way, the misrigging is an interesting topic to discuss on its own. Lot's of lessons to learn there.

[cyyz]

You think that passengers should be responsible for correct loading and critical surface examination? Give me a freaking break.

I don't need a lecture on real-world operations, or accident reports. I have experience with both. 1,200lbs is grossly negligent -- that is pretty black & white from where I'm sitting. The buck stops with the pilot.

Please go to red lobster with a seafood allergy and let me know if you can sue them because they tried to "poison you."

Oh, at this moment you'd probably win, they don't have a "careful food made near seafood, like all the other places with the nut thing..."

It's bs, They don't need to do the w&b, but if they were SKEPTICAL that something was "wrong" then they are pretty stupid for not doing anything about....


*argh pulling hair* you're stating the buck stops with the pilot! That's the entire point, it obviously hasn't stopped there and the company is being sued......

[bugspray]

Interesting

http://www.avweb.com/newswire/12_12a/br ... 803-1.html

Ice Limitations Irk Caravan Operators

By Russ Niles
Newswriter, Editor

An Airworthiness Directive (AD) affecting operations in ice by Cessna Caravan operators is getting a cold reception from some. An industry source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told AVweb Friday that a section of the AD requiring pilots to exit icing conditions if they observe a build-up of greater than a quarter of an inch on the wing strut will be challenged by operators. "That seems to be very conservative," the source said. He noted that a quarter of an inch of ice on a strut wouldn't necessarily translate to a similar amount on lifting surfaces on the plane, which has pneumatic boots and is certified for flight into known icing. The FAA issued its latest AD on Caravan icing last Thursday, a month after the NTSB issued safety recommendations on the subject. The AD, which takes effect Friday, requires pilots to get out of icing conditions considered to be anything greater than "light." The FAA says icing exceeds the "light" definition if there's a quarter-inch buildup on the strut, if the aircraft's speed drops by 20 knots at constant power in level flight, if engine power required to maintain speed increases by more than 400 ft. lbs. or if the plane is unable to maintain 120 knots in level flight. Pilots must maintain a minimum speed of 120 knots (flaps up) in icing conditions. All the limitations must be put in the pilot operating handbook and placarded on the instrument panel.

[Cat Driver]

Quote:
---------------------------------------------------------

" cyyz: You cannot blame the consumer for seeking the lowest fare/price, and then somehow suggest that it is the consumer's fault because the service may not have been provided safely at that price. If an operator offers a service at a particular price, we, as consumers in our society, should reasonably expect that the service will be provided at the advertised price while also in compliance with the safety-oriented laws of the land. (recognizing that Cat may have something to say about that premise, or the enforcement thereof) If the operator cannot safely offer the service at the advertised price it is the operator's responsibility to withdraw the offer of service. The courts would conclude the same. "

-------------------------------------------------------------

My comment is quite definitive.

Having read the accident report this accident was preventable had the pilot acted in a manner that was reasonable in the circumsatnces....cancelled the flight due to ice caused by precepitation...as well it is reasonable to expect any pilot flying sched flights to have the ability to determine that the load was well over max allowable....

I note that no one had mentioned that the TSB stated fatigue and stress were a factor, the fatigue seems to be from lack of sleep, but what were the stress facors involved?

Very few here seem to understand what or who I am, I have zero tolerance for unsafe aircraft operations regardless of the reason for the unsafe issues.

As to enforcement of these rules there are several links in the enforcement chain..

(1) The pilot.
(2) The company management people
(3) The regulator

In that order.

I am one of the highest time and qualified pilots that posts on Avcanada and pride myself in being professional and safety conscious to the extreem my record speaks for itself.

As to TCCA and their roll in prevention of accidents such as this it is academic, TC has the responsibility to ensure compliance.

Unfortunately without co operation from the people in industry and co operation from the regulator based on fairness and proper use of their authority and resorurces it falls very short in many cases and the reasons are far to complex for me to go into here.

Cat

[cyyz]

As to enforcement of these rules there are several links in the enforcement chain..

(1) The pilot.
(2) The company management people
(3) The regulator

In that order.

But Cat, I'm wagering of all the companies in the last few years with "issues" they didn't pressure him to fly, and the regulator approved all their manuals...

Had the manuals been followed by the pilots it wouldn't have happened....

You can' expect the company to pay for another "enforcer pilot" to fly with their pilot to baby sit, and you can have tc pay an inspector to baby sit the inspector and the pilot.....

I only blame the pilot in this one....

[Cat Driver]

cyyz, yes on the surface your opinion is correct, however the TSB stated " stress " as a contributing factor.

Was the culture of the company such that pilots felt stressed to fly?

If that was a contributing factor then the management of the company has to be looked at, and by default the regulator must be seen to be doing their part to ensure operational control is being performed to a safe and acceptable standard.

Nothing is beyond scrutiny when people are killed in a commercial airplane accident.

Fault finding is how we improve and maintain safety.

Cat

[cyyz]

Fault finding is how we improve and maintain safety.

and find ways of laying blame...

Just a quick question to all, if a taxi driver crashes, do people sue the taxi company too if they're injured?

If so, fine. But blah...

[CID]

Please go to red lobster with a seafood allergy and let me know if you can sue them because they tried to "poison you."

Do you really think that's a relevant question cyyz?

Just a quick question to all, if a taxi driver crashes, do people sue the taxi company too if they're injured?

Are you suggesting that there is no way that the taxi company assumes responsibility? When you enter into a commercial agreement with a taxi company (also known as hailing a cab) everyone connected to the taxi ride including the car, the driver and the company assumes a degree of liability. For example, if the cab driver is negligent and causes an accident, he may be solely liable. However, if he lost control due to a design defect, the car manufacturer assumes some of the liability. If the cab company was responsible for maintenance on the contract driver's car, and the accident was cause my brake failure due to wear, the cab company can certainly be liable.

The only way to find out is through litigation. It may not always be obvious to us how they are tied but the lawyers and the judges will find out if asked.

and find ways of laying blame...

For every action there is a cause. There can be no blame without responsibility. If you meet your contractual obligations, then you have earned your pay. If you don't you are in breach of contract and liable for damages. That's how life works.

[Cargo Pilot]

if the cab driver is negligent and causes an accident, he may be solely liable

Not a chance would he be solely liable. The paying passenger is expecting that the company would not utilize drivers/pilots who would ever be negligent to the point of causing injury. I know in the real world accidents happen and sometimes people get hurt unintentionally - that's why we call them accidents. However, in the legal sense the company has shared liability, as does the regulating body that permits them to operate.

Just my opinion of course, since I am not a lawyer.

[CID]

Cargo Pilot

For most practical cases you're right. But what if the guy driving the cab isn't employed by the cab company? What if he stole it?

Either way, I think we're on the same page.

[Cargo Pilot]

'Employment' isn't really relevant in this scenario, it's more an issue of 'permission'. Whether the driver/pilot is an employee/contractor/owner-operator is moot (or is it moo ).

As far as stealing the vehicle, that was not the example we were talking about.

I agree we are on the same page on this one, I'm just having a hard time digesting that...

[cyyz]

Not a chance would he be solely liable. The paying passenger is expecting that the company would not utilize drivers/pilots who would ever be negligent to the point of causing injury. I know in the real world accidents happen and sometimes people get hurt unintentionally - that's why we call them accidents. However, in the legal sense the company has shared liability, as does the regulating body that permits them to operate.

Blah, what a disgusting world we live in, where we can sue as far as the city for having "bumpy roads..."

Very well lads, blame the company, but now, second question so I don't need to get worked up about all this, doesn't the air operator have insurance for this kind of crap? So when they lose their lawsuit, and are told to pay 10 million, the insurance company will cover the costs right????

And then insurance premiums will go up and insurance minimums( ) will go up...

Horrible society...

Thanks guys..

[J31]

Quote:

I note that no one had mentioned that the TSB stated fatigue and stress were a factor, the fatigue seems to be from lack of sleep, but what were the stress facors involved?

Cat

I think this report is very well done. This pilot made some poor decisions that he would not normally do. The TSB highlighted some of the stress factors involved. Were they overwhelming to this pilot....it appears so in this case. I think we all have gotten “tunnel vision” at times and the key is to recognize that, take a step back and look at the big picture. Of course fatigue makes it harder to recognize poor judgment.

From the report: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/200 ... 1_sec2.asp

2.9 Pilot Decision Making

From the information available, there is no indication that the accident pilot was a risk taker or that his decision making was negatively influenced by routine job stresses. A review of the records of his previous flights into Pelee Island show that it was not his practice to fly the aircraft in an overweight condition.

The pilot made a number of decisions that increased the risk to the safe operation of flight. He uploaded 1000 pounds of fuel before leaving Windsor when there was already ample fuel on board to complete the flights to and from Pelee Island, including alternate fuel. Although he normally uploaded more fuel than required as a precautionary measure after considering the passenger load for the return trip, in this instance, it exacerbated the eventual overweight condition of the accident flight. For the flight from Pelee Island to Windsor, he chose an alternate airport that did not satisfy the POH warning not to fly into an airport where freezing rain or drizzle conditions exist. There is no indication that he informed ATC of his change of alternate from Sarnia to Detroit. The pilot attempted the flight although he was aware of the ice contamination on the aircraft. All of the above decisions were inconsistent with the pilot's normal approach to flight safety.

While it could not be established with certainty that the pilot was fatigued, given his past performance, it is likely that a combination of fatigue and stress reduced his working memory and narrowed his attention. Specifically, the scheduled short turnaround time, the large passenger load, the adverse weather conditions, the lack of de-icing equipment, and the need to complete the flight may have acted as stressors.

For the accident flight, there are indications that the pilot's assessment of risk was likely degraded by some combination of stress and fatigue. The known effects of fatigue on risk assessment could account for his assessment that the flight risk was low or for his tolerance of increased risk to complete the short flight.

The pilot's decision to fly overweight and without addressing the wing contamination pointed out by two individuals are other indications of his degraded assessment of risk. Retracting the flaps after take-off, contrary to the POH cautions not to raise the flaps when encountering icing conditions, is a further indication of his degraded performance.

Consistent with the known effects of fatigue-related perseveration, there is no indication that the pilot considered changing his original plan to complete the flight in spite of a heavier-than-normal passenger load and a direct report of contamination on the wing. He appeared to have narrowed his attention solely to completing the planned flight, regardless of several factors that indicated that the flight should not be completed.

[. ._]

And he had gottagethometobangmygirlfriendafterIimpressherwithafreeflight-itis.

WOMAN IS THE DEVIL!

-istp

[Cargo Pilot]

cyyz,

Just so we're clear, I was not defending the system. I was just offering my opinion on how it works.

Regarding insurance, every insurance policy has liability limits. If you are insured for $10 million and are levied with a $20 million judgment, you are on the hook for the balance. And yes your premiums will go up, if you can get coverage at all.

Did the pilot in this case f$%k up? Yes, and he should shoulder the majority of the blame for this very avoidable accident. I do believe that the company needs to accept some responsibility for this as well though. There had to be a reason why he didn't cancel this flight. Was this pilot getting pressure from some 200 hour wannabe working in dispatch? Is it possible that company culture promoted a cavalier attitude toward weather and the limitations of the aircraft? Is it reasonable to say that the pilot should never have been placed in this position to begin with? What would the response have been from the company if he had successfully completed this flight?

It's easy to hang 'em high when they fail...

[N2]

I personally think that we shouldn't pass judgement based on elements we'll never know about. What I mean by that is the pilot sounded like a inteligent person and we don't know exactly what his thinking process was at the time and had it of been any one of us in the same conditions thinking the same thoughts would we have handled it any differently than he did?

Were mistakes made..most certainly, have we learned anything from this..I hope so.....

[CID]

cyyz,

I don't get it. The point you seem to be upset about is responsibility. We must all take responsibility for our actions. That doesn't mean that we need to be prepared to say "sorry" whenever our actions cause harm.

This isn't some grand decay of society. It's been the case for eons. If you steal something, you must make reparations. If you injure or kill someone, same.

Of course there are extremes like the litigation-fest we see in the US but they recognize the problem and the introduction of tort reform is slowly but surely addressing that. But I don't think we're talking about a frivolous lawsuit here.

I'm having a hard time believing that if it was your family member on that airplane you would walk away from litigation.

[golden hawk]

and find ways of laying blame...

Just a quick question to all, if a taxi driver crashes, do people sue the taxi company too if they're injured?

If so, fine. But blah...

Employers are liable for the torts of their employees.

[Doc]

We have to get away from using TSB's catch-all terms, like fatigue and stress being factors! This guy got into an ice covered airplane, in freezing rain, more than half a TON overweight, after having some of these facts brought to his attention, actually tried to fly the bloody thing!! Is anybody listening? There are NO factors...it is totally his fault! He was tired? Boohoo! He was under stress? Boohoo! Keep tossing out the excuses...they're all total bull shit!!!!