Beaver incident in Nanaimo?

[CD]

See? Although it may offend Doc's sensitivities, this is why it's a good idea to use the quote feature. If you read back a few posts, you will find that Bulawrench took a run at 2R. I figure that this was just 2R responding...

[Bulawrench]

sounds like he is defending the next defunct airline..Worst coast air.

[CD]

CADORS Number: 2008P0272

Reported By: The Company/TSB
TSB Class Of Investigation: 5
TSB Occurrence No.: A08P0043

Narrative: A08P0043: A DeHavilland Beaver (DHC-2) on floats, operated by West Coast Air, was arriving at Nanaimo Harbour, BC from Vancouver Harbour, BC with the pilot and five passengers on board. The weather was clear but there were fog patches reported over the water. While attempting to land, the aircraft entered fog and the pilot initiated an overshoot. During the overshoot, the aircraft received minor damage when it struck a tree with the left outboard wing. The aircraft circled and made an emergency landing without further incident. There were no injuries.

Please note that for the most part, CADORS reports contain preliminary, unconfirmed data which can be subject to change.

[Ogee]

Hmmmm...

This doesn't sound like an elevator hanging off, does it?

Left outboard wing? Yet the strut is damaged and the prop is supposedly got some damage. And the floats, or the left float anyway?

Normally hitting a tree with a wingtip is a lot worse than hitting one nearer to the yaw axis. Unless its a pretty small tree.

[FOwithBO]

This is how WCA might fix their problems. Hire for competence not people who seem like they may stay a long time regardless of having hammed fists or a bit of a drinking problem or are foreign and might be subserviant or are retired from the airline job and wont go anywhere else.................... pay them fairly or hell, even above average, even if the pilots and CP crew follow the revolving door consistantly for other jobs. Yes, it hurts the budget to see people go consistantly, but at least if you hire a competent CP and MD and create a thorough and lengthy training program, you will INSTILL safety and a great reputation with clientelle. You will save money in the longrun by avoiding accidents. And, regardless of how high the the training costs, you're much better to be funding the revolving door of good pilots than funding the measures of lawsuits and high insurance costs. And oh yeah, treat the pilots like they are your biggest asset, because they are.

Now, for the pilots just reading this, please read the whole thread before rebutle. And, there ARE great pilots at WCA right now, unfortuantely management is hiring too many underexperienced ones.

[viccoastdog]

Hmmmm...

This doesn't sound like an elevator hanging off, does it?

Left outboard wing? Yet the strut is damaged and the prop is supposedly got some damage. And the floats, or the left float anyway?

Also doesn't sound like an estimated $150 000 damage that was reported in an earlier post. I was also told that the wing was torn open and their were branches hanging off of the plane when it got to the dock. I bet this changes from 'minor damage' to 'substantial damage' on an update to the CADORS once repairs are completed.

[Bulawrench]

I think there is discrepancies with that report. Why does everyone in the industry say hanging horizontal stabilizer and spreader bar and strut and wing bent back. Anyone from Sealand give us some comment? I think we are all thankful that everyone is safe.

[Mr Brown]

Wow, I know it's preliminary but that post with the CADORS is bullsh!t. I saw pictures of the aircraft yesterday and pretty much everything that has been speculated here is true. The elevator was hanging on a 45 degree from the torque tube, both hinges screwed. Left wing strut bent, decent size dent in the leading edge of the left wing. Pine needles in the housing for the landing light and stuck in the footpegs. Plus a fair amount of green on the wing, strut and body of the aircraft. But I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on that one and say it's their new paint scheme. Word has it the oil cooler was screwed as well. Sounds like a little more than "minor damage" to me.


It'll be interesting to see if anything actually comes from this.

[CD]

As you can see from the post, the source of the CADORS information is The Company/TSB, and the TSB has assigned it a Class 5 status.

As you've already seen the photos, can you now share them with the rest of us?

[Cat Driver]

While attempting to land, the aircraft entered fog and the pilot initiated an overshoot. During the overshoot, the aircraft received minor damage when it struck a tree with the left outboard wing.

How did this happen, did he hit the trees on Newcastle Island in fog after missing the landing in the harbor?

The aircraft circled and made an emergency landing without further incident.

To have done a full circuit the damage could not have been as serious as first reported here on Avcanada.

And the fog in the harbor must have cleared up real fast because he missed the first try.

It would be educational to get the facts on this accident, it just looks strange so far.

[lilfssister]

Sounds like a little more than "minor damage" to me.

From years of reading CADORS, there seems to be four levels of damage reported:

Unnown: straightforward
No damage: straightforward
Minor damage: was able to continue flying and/or will fly again
Substantial damage: most probably it is toast

[Cat Driver]

CD:

The accident was on Monday the 18th. of Feb. When was the cadors issued and when was the report made to TCCA/ TSB?

[CD]

It's difficult to say. The CADORS information indicates that the file was generated on the TCCA end on the 22nd. However, there is no indication of how long the TSB had the information before passing it along or whether there was simply a delay in entering the information in the system. So far, no additional information has been added so it's not clear whether any more information is actually available. As the file incorporates the TSB occurrence number in the narrative, they must be the sole source of information so far and likely only had what was provided by the company.

As others have mentioned, I would suspect that if additional information becomes available (like the photos?) then the CADORS file may be updated...

[2R]

Good to see that some are still interested in getting all the facts first ,before we engage in the wild ass speculation that makes for some peoples entertainment

[Widow]

Float plane hits trees on aborted landing
West Coast Air flight landed safely after sustaining damage
Ty Roberts , For Canwest News Service; with Files Daily News
Published: Saturday, February 23, 2008

A West Coast Air pilot and his five passengers narrowly avoided a woodland smash-up last Monday when their float plane dipped into the trees during an aborted landing at Nanaimo Harbour.

The close call happened Monday afternoon on a flight from downtown Vancouver to the city centre harbour in Nanaimo, said Canada Transportation Safety Board spokesman Glen Friesen.

Friesen said the skies were clear, but that there had been some low-lying fog throughout the day in the harbour.

The aircraft was on its final approach to the landing area when the pilot encountered some fog and initiated a go-around (aborted landing)," Friesen said.

He said during the go-around the aircraft struck treetops and sustained damage to the wing, the wing strut, the tail, and the floats, but the pilot was able to land and bring the aircraft into the dock at Nanaimo.

West Coast Air president Rick Baxter said the company had determined the incident was due to pilot error and the pilot involved has been dismissed.

Baxter said he was very surprised by the incident. "This pilot has more than 18,000 hours of flying time," he said. "We at West Coast take any and all incidents very seriously. The safety of our customers is our No. 1 consideration."

The aircraft is now undergoing repairs and is expected to be returned to service next week. No further TSPB investigation is planned, Friesen said.

"The hazards of flight in low visibility are well known and established. There is nothing new to be learned from this."

Transport Canada spokesperson Rod Nelson said Transport is investigating the incident for possible regulatory infractions.

http://www.canada.com:80/vancouverislan ... 9dbbf49c90

[Cat Driver]

I feel better now because there is nothing new to be learned from this...case closed.

Friesen said the skies were clear, but that there had been some low-lying fog throughout the day in the harbour.

The aircraft was on its final approach to the landing area when the pilot encountered some fog and initiated a go-around (aborted landing)," Friesen said.

He said during the go-around the aircraft struck treetops and sustained damage to the wing, the wing strut, the tail, and the floats, but the pilot was able to land and bring the aircraft into the dock at Nanaimo.

But the cynic in me causes me to ask why if the weather was so good how come someone here said Harbor Air canceled all flights to Nanaimo that day?

Please forgive me for being cynical.

[Widow]

From SATOPs:

When an accident occurs, often the pilot is the only one held accountable. While the pilot may be at fault for having made a poor decision or series of decisions that led to the accident, other questions have to be asked... Were there any systemic problems in the company? What was management’s role in the accident? What did management do to prevent the accident? What is management doing to prevent a recurrence? Management must be accountable for the safety of the day-to-day operations. When management is held responsible for an accident, they will become more proactive in promoting safe operating practices.

SR 30 - Recommend the Transportation Safety Board evaluate the management factors that contributed to the accident during the accident investigation.

The TSB, with their lovely Occurance Classification Policy, can learn nothing new. If they don't investigate the systemic problems in the company, managements role, etc. - TCCA will never hold management responsible, and things will never change. They fixed the problem by firing the pilot? I doubt it.

[lilfssister]

http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc. ... h=2&Day=18


Of course that's the Airport, not the harbour.

[Cat Driver]

The airport can be CAVU all day and the Straight of Georgia can be solid fog all day, I think it has something to due with the difference between the temperature of the water and the temperature of the land.

[viccoastdog]

http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc. ... h=2&Day=18


Of course that's the Airport, not the harbour.

Here's what to look at to see what Nanaimo Harbour looks like - there are three cameras that cover much of the harbour from a vantage point by WCA and HA operating area. I wonder if they store the historical images anywhere on the Environment Canada website for as long ago as last Monday?http://www.weatheroffice.pyr.ec.gc.ca/R ... ult_e.html

From years of reading CADORS, there seems to be four levels of damage reported:

Unnown: straightforward
No damage: straightforward
Minor damage: was able to continue flying and/or will fly again
Substantial damage: most probably it is toast

I thought that damage to a strut or spar or flight control surfaces constituted substantial damage. It would be great to see some pictures.

The aircraft was on its final approach to the landing area when the pilot encountered some fog and initiated a go-around (aborted landing)," Friesen said.

He said during the go-around the aircraft struck treetops and sustained damage to the wing, the wing strut, the tail, and the floats, but the pilot was able to land and bring the aircraft into the dock at Nanaimo

Sounds real wierd...on final you all of a sudden go into fog? Even so that still boils down to some pretty bad decision making. I don't know if we're going to see any more info than what has already been released.

[FOwithBO]

Yeah, viccoastdog, I was wondering also how the pilot got into the fog. Could have been one of those days where there was a low overcast that just kept getting lower as he approached the harbour and just decided to try to land?

[snoopy]

Good grief - my head is reeling...

This whole thread is one big unresolved conflict, with all kinds of people (including Widow, ., Mr Brown and others) hinting they know better but not coming out and actually saying what they know or where they heard it. Where's the photos Mr. Brown? Did the airplane crash on approach or the go around? Did it actually fly a circuit around to land? Was the damage as bad as implied? Did the wreckage fly or get trucked to the maintenance facility? If it flew, was everything on the up and up? Why was WCA flying that day when HA was not, and now its the pilot's fault. Was it entirely the pilot's fault? If there is nothing new to be learned from this accident, why did yet another CFIT happen and why does everybody seem to be hiding the truth - ie facts and evidence?

This is the digital age! Surely somebody saw something and/or took a picture!

Never mind all the chaff - What actually happened on February 18th?!!!



end rant!

Cheers,
Snoopy

[viccoastdog]

Good grief - my head is reeling...snip

This is the digital age! Surely somebody saw something and/or took a picture!

Never mind all the chaff - What actually happened on February 18th?!!!



end rant!

Cheers,
Snoopy

Ah but it was a good rant!

[Cat Driver]

This whole thread is one big unresolved conflict, with all kinds of people (including Widow, ., Mr Brown and others) hinting they know better but not coming out and actually saying what they know or where they heard it.

Snoopy, I started this thread because someone from WCA phoned me and suggested I go down to the harbour and get some pictures of the airplane...I did not for several reasons such as there is a locked gate to the docks and it is not my responsibility to record these things.

Where's the photos Mr. Brown?

Agreed where are they?

Did the airplane crash on approach or the go around? Did it actually fly a circuit around to land?

I was told it was on the approach.

Was the damage as bad as implied?

We do not know yet.

Did the wreckage fly or get trucked to the maintenance facility?

good question, I have worked in the airplane salvage business for quite some time and getting a Beaver dismantled and hoisted on to a truck is not something that can be done without someone having seen it done.

If it flew, was everything on the up and up? Why was WCA flying that day when HA was not, and now its the pilot's fault. Was it entirely the pilot's fault? If there is nothing new to be learned from this accident, why did yet another CFIT happen and why does everybody seem to be hiding the truth - ie facts and evidence?

This is the digital age! Surely somebody saw something and/or took a picture!

Never mind all the chaff - What actually happened on February 18th?!!!

Good questions snoopy, I also am a bit cynical about this whole thing because I know how things are done out here on the west coast and the picture is not pretty, this has all the symptoms of a quick sweep under the rug by firing the pilot and tell the public there is nothing new to be learned by this.....in other words the TSB and TCCA are basically saying that there was no other factors at play here except a 18,000 pilot just for no reason flew a Beaver into the trees with five passengers on board.

This does not pass the odor test for me.

[Widow]

Forgive my share in the innuendos. I know quite a few people down on the spit here in CR, and the consensus seems to be that aircraft JBP arrived on its own power. Perhaps flyingsafely would like to pipe in?