pacific rim submarine?

[bose]

does anyone have the goods regarding the pacific rim aviation floatplane wrong side up floatin down the fraser with a couple people holdin on last week?

[200hr Wonder]

Yup it was.

[Widow]

This really sounds like an interesting story ... people floating down the fraser on their overturned floatplane???

How come we've not seen anything on the news or anywhere?

[Cat Driver]

Interesting question widow.

You will find that in aviation when there is a misshap the first reaction is to hide it.

[goldeneagle]

This really sounds like an interesting story ... people floating down the fraser on their overturned floatplane???

How come we've not seen anything on the news or anywhere?

A 172 upside down in the river, nobody hurt. It's the aviation equivalent of a fender bender. Why does everybody want to make a big deal and splash it all over the news when an airplane is involved, yet if it's a car, they will happily drive by on the commute home, and forget about it by the time they reach the next light ?

A 172 on floats is either privately owned, or, a training machine. Ending upside down in the water is almost certainly a landing mishap, most likely while on a training mission. This is not a newsworthy event. Why do folks want to try turn it into such ? The witch hunt gets tiring after a while. If you have an axe to grind with a specific operation, go grind it, but for chrissake, stop trying to drag the rest of us down in the process. If you have specific knowledge of extenuating circumstances in this case, fine, grind your axe, but until then, stop trying to make a national tragedy out of a simple landing mishap on a training mission.

[Pratt X 3]

This really sounds like an interesting story ... people floating down the fraser on their overturned floatplane???

How come we've not seen anything on the news or anywhere?

A 172 upside down in the river, nobody hurt. It's the aviation equivalent of a fender bender. Why does everybody want to make a big deal and splash it all over the news when an airplane is involved, yet if it's a car, they will happily drive by on the commute home, and forget about it by the time they reach the next light ?

A 172 on floats is either privately owned, or, a training machine. Ending upside down in the water is almost certainly a landing mishap, most likely while on a training mission. This is not a newsworthy event. Why do folks want to try turn it into such ? The witch hunt gets tiring after a while. If you have an axe to grind with a specific operation, go grind it, but for chrissake, stop trying to drag the rest of us down in the process. If you have specific knowledge of extenuating circumstances in this case, fine, grind your axe, but until then, stop trying to make a national tragedy out of a simple landing mishap on a training mission.

Here, here! Good post.

[SeawingsUAE]

I second that!'
beyond good post,
excellent post!

[splitpin]

Everyone should know by now how the aviation industry works!
"Give the Pilot a fair trial and hang him!!"

[Cat Driver]

Then on the other side of the coin is the question of how these things happen and what we can learn from such misshaps.

Simple things such as did it hit a deadhead they couldn't see, was it inattention on the part of one or two pilots, was it a failure of a part such as a float strut.

Did it it get hit by a meteorite? Hell there could be a thousand reasons why it was upside down.

So once again what exactly is wrong with wanting to know what happened?

Or is aviation so paranoid that no one can deal with something going wrong and try and learn from it?

[Widow]

If someone fell into a river and hung on to a log until rescue, it would be newsworthy. If a car "landed" in the Fraser and some people escaped unhurt, that would still be newsworthy. If a boat overturned and people had to be rescued, that would be newsworthy. Why should hanging on to an aircraft make it less so?

If an aircraft "crash-landed" on the water, some people had to egress and be rescued ... that kind of story is of interest to me ... since that is what happened to my husband (sans the rescue of course). Rescues are human interest stories.

I don't see anything wrong with asking if anyone knows more. If it was just a failed attempt to land on the water, or if there was an engine failure, or whatever precipitated the overturning of the aircraft is one area of interest. The idea that people were floating down the Fraser hanging on to anything in the middle of March sounds like news to me.

[xsbank]

Pretty vitriolic post from goldeneagle, maybe it was him?

[Cat Driver]

Naw, I know Gold Eagle and he is quite normal and rational at times.

My guess is he is shitdisturbing again, so I played the good cop part of the charade.

But the bottom line is this is an aviation forum and wanting to know why these things happen is as natural as breathing.

[fougner]

.

[Widow]

I would have preferred the media be all over our case trying to find out what really happened, rather than ignoring it. If our case hadn't got lost in the media because of the other things that were going on at the same time (four RCMP officers died in Alberta) it is possible that we wouldn't have ended up as a class 5 investigation, and the coroner would not be asleep on the job. Media interest equals community interest equals compelling reasons to investigate for cause.

[goldeneagle]

Pretty vitriolic post from goldeneagle, maybe it was him?

Nahh, wasn't me xsbank. Just getting totally fed up with all the witch hunts running around this industry lately. for those of us that run a tight ship within the rules as laid out by transport, it gets awful tiring watching the paperwork and regulatory burden continue to increase every time we get uninformed folks making outrageous claims about stuff which they know very little, and then getting that kind of stuff published by the reactionary press inevitably results in reactionary politics at transport, and those of us in the industry that are NOT the problem, get straddled with the added costs of the politics, and the resulting regulatory burden.

The thing that really gets me, some folks have a demonstrated ability to do at least casual research on a subject. It's not a secret, every place there is a shady operator skirting the rules, you just have to do a little asking around near the docks / airport to find out who it is. Before the fatal flight in question took off, was ANY research done into the selection of a charter operator other than the 'who is cheapest' phone call ?

Put this into a bit of perspective. 25 years ago, I flew a 421 around bc pretty much daily. Passengers were 165 pounds, and I carried 6 of them regularily, it was normal. Today, same airplane, but since some kid took off into freezing rain with a load of big folks, now it's assumed they are all big, and we can only carry 5 in a 421. top it off with more rule changes, I like to go on top ifr, where the flying is much easier than vfr underneath, but apparently I'm confused here. Flying vfr crawling thru the valleys must be easier, I can do that all day single pilot, but, if i want to go up high, do a 1.5 hour flight out in the morning, wait 6 hours, then go home, I have to take a second pilot, cuz apparently that's a lot harder than crawling the valleys vfr. Now, with 2 pilots (and only 4 pax, had to sacrificed one for the second pilot) on board, you would think we are qualified to look out the window at the bottom of an approach, and decide if the vis is good enough to land, but, no, even tho we have been doing it for nigh on 30 years without bending any tin, now, we cant even go down for a look anymore if the wx observer says the vis is low. shit, i've NEVER seen an accurate visibility report from the wx observer in tofino, but, what the hell, all in the name of safety they say. There is NOTHING changed with the airplane, except the addition of accurate navigation equipment, we had adf back then, we have gps today, workload is way lower now, but, all these rules changes have made the airplane far less useful in it's role.

The regulatory burden is smothering small operators financially, and, these reactionary witch hunts are only making it worse. They always end up with the regulator making more rules that have no effect on the operators that dont pay heed to the rules anyways, and do nothing but increase the cost of operations for those that do. When I see folks trying to make a 'newsworthy' issue out of a 172 with a landing incident on the water, well, the pressure valve lets go. I see all this effort in a lashing out witch hunt that's gaining our biz a lot of uninformed and WRONG bad press, and sometimes I really want to just ask out loud, did they do ANY research into choosing a charter operator, or did they just phone around for the cheapest price ???

[Cat Driver]

Had a look at their web site, they sure have nice looking airplanes.

Shame to damage a nice looking float plane like that and I can imagine how bad they feel.

[Widow]

goldeneagle, if you are talking about the fatal flight my husband - he worked as a contractor for a logging company, as did the three other passengers (a different company). The companies they worked for, contracted with the operator, and the passengers did not have a choice about who they flew with. These logging companies (especially the one my husband worked for - a large, international firm) contracted this operator (who was really a logger), in our view, entirely on the basis of cost - despite their tender for contract (and therefore contract) which included safety systems, maintenance and other oversight. As far as we are concerned, they should be charged under Bill C-45. But the cops are not willing to hand it over to the prosecutor, because the prosecutor will only decline to prosecute. Lot's of evidence for a civil suit (which is useless since they cannot be civilly sued being an employer in BC), but not enough for criminal prosecution.

The regulator also had an obligation to ensure a safe operation, and they did not do that. If you think the links in this accident chain are unique, then you are a fool. Many of the problems which led to that accident were known problems which no one has ever addressed satisfactorily. Do you really think the concerns, as addressed in the initial letter to the Standing Committee are a "witch hunt"? Have you even read it? We don't want more rules, we want the existing rules to be enforced with common sense and uniformity across the country. As you run a tight ship within the rules as laid out by TCCA, then you should be just as concerned as others about what your "shady" competitors are getting away with.

[Cat Driver]

We don't want more rules, we want the existing rules to be enforced with common sense and uniformity across the country. As you run a tight ship within the rules as laid out by TCCA, then you should be just as concerned as others about what your "shady" competitors are getting away with.

Golden Eagle, I and quite a few operators are of the same opinion as widow stated in the above box.

There is a whole lot more to this than a short read of Avcanada can give you.

Trust me G.E. we are on your side 100% in what we are trying to do and it sure as hell is not more useless rules.

I'll talk to you in private soon, meantime you have my word we are not doing things half cocked....O.K?

[carholme]

Goldeneagle;

You may have read a lot of what is happening in discussions concerning Transport Canada, Quest for Justice, Virgil Moshansky and the meetings in Ottawa and if you have bothered to keep abreast of events, I am surprized that we have not heard from you before.
The fear is just how many operators out there are suffering under the same burden from the regulator and not doing anything about it. In trying to run a good operation these days, we too are seeing the effects of a runaway regulatory system impacting business.
When you read through the various posts on this site and see pilots wondering and complaining about decent salaries, where is the future for all of the entry level crews if the small operators are forced out of business because there is no level playing field between the good and bad operators. As long as the bad ones keep getting away with flying over loaded aircraft, poor maintenance and undercutting rates, where does that leave an operator trying to run a good operation.
I think there are far too many decent operators out there who don't want the shit disturbed for fear of TC coming down on them. As we have said before, this is our industry, when are we going to fight back.
I don't think Widow is promoting a "witch hunt". Her unfortunate circumstance highlighted our battle over the last three years and has made us push forward in a greater effort to try and get something done.

If change cannot take place when the national economy is faring well, watch what happens in the next large downturn. We are already facing a major decline in tourism in our area, we have to keep investing and the shoddy operator keeps finding more ways to cut corners, undercut rates,
pay piss poor wages to kids who want to fly and in the end, we can not compete. Either we do something about it or get out of business. If the regulator cannot do their job and improve the playing field by getting rid of the shoddy operators, why should we keep sinking money into a pit?

No, we don't think she is on a "witch hunt", we just hope that she wakes up some other people as well.

Regards

carholme

[the professional]

Very Unlucky machine... It crashed close to the Manitoba/Saskatchewan border about a year and a half ago.
Glad to hear everyone got out Ok.

[bandit1]

LET'S SEE SOME PICS!!!

GIMME PICS! I WANT TO SEE PICS!!!

haha just kidding....

[Reality]

Could have been just a rumour, however I heard the pacific rim incident was a simple brain fart of leaving the float balls out of the floats and it sunk, but like I say could be just another rumour. I hope this is the true version however!!!