LifeGuard 3 King Air B200 off runway Maple Creek SK

[lowlevel]

I heard about a year ago, that the rumour on the street was that the Sask Gov. was going to go two crew, they just had to get it passed, approved, or however that works with government.

[lowlevel]

I found this little article while surfing and I thought it was worth throwing it on here, as it seems there is some discrepency to be two crew or single pilot. Kind of interesting how the two crew enviornment can get quite out of control as well.


TSB Report on Air Transat Airbus A310 Close Call
The Transportation Safety Board released a report today on a close call that occurred on an Air Transat Airbus A310 during a flight from Quebec City to Montreal. Less than 2 minutes after take off the pilot's of the Airbus with 98 people on board momentarily lost control of the airplane, regaining it a mere 995 feet above the ground.

The full report can be found here.

Summary Report:


The Airbus A310-308 operated by Air Transat was on a flight from Québec International Airport/Jean Lesage to Montréal International Airport/Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Quebec. At about 1439 Eastern Standard Time, the flight was cleared for take-off from Runway 06 and climb to 3000 feet above sea level (asl) on a heading of 110° magnetic. The aircraft lifted off at 182 knots, 44 knots above the calculated rotation speed. During the climb, the rate of climb reached 6300 feet per minute with a pitch attitude of 19°nose up. To level off, the pilot flying used the electric trim for the nose-down trim. The aircraft stopped climbing at 3100 feet asl and started a descent to the assigned altitude. However, at 3000 feet asl, the aircraft in an out of trim condition continued its descent until 1300 feet asl before pitch control was regained. The crew declared an emergency. The aircraft proceeded to Montréal where it landed without further incident. An inspection of the aircraft did not reveal any damage or deficiencies. There were no injuries.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors


1.The take-off briefing did not take into account the elements that contributed to the aircraft’s exceptional climb performance; as a result, the briefing did not improve cohesion in the cockpit as it should have done.

2.Following the disconnection of the co-pilot’s headset, the “Rotate” call was missed during the take-off run. The aircraft lifted off at 182 knots, or 44 knots above the rotation speed calculated by the crew.

3.The actions required to follow the flight path and climb profile contributed to overloading the crew and resulted in errors. The sequence of actions and standard calls during the climb was disrupted. As a result, the crew did not select Climb Thrust on the thrust rating panel.

4.When levelling off at 3000 feet, the captain activated the electric trim until the trimmable horizontal stabilizer reached its nose down stop. This resulted in an out-of-trim condition.

5.To reduce the aircraft’s speed, the captain retarded the throttles. However, he activated the Go Levers without noticing. The go-around mode was activated, power increased to the maximum, and the aircraft’s speed continued to increase.

6.The unexpected change to go-around mode confused the captain when he had a heavy workload. Exposed to information overload, preoccupied by the aircraft’s increasing speed, and experiencing a somatogravic illusion, the captain focused all his attention on the aircraft’s speed rather than on the instruments. As a result, the captain did not realize that the aircraft was accelerating towards the ground, and mistakenly believed that the indicated speed was incorrect.

7.The captain did not react to the co-pilot’s warnings that the aircraft’s attitude did not comply with the desired flight profile. As a result, the co-pilot took control of the aircraft without recognizing that the aircraft was out of trim.

8.When he took the controls, the co-pilot did not realize that the aircraft was out of trim despite the exceptionally high control column forces. As a result, the pitch trim was not used to reduce the control column forces.

9.Because of the proximity of the ground, the crew had little time to identify the problem, determine and consider the options, and coordinate their efforts. As a result, the effect of the time-related stress could have precipitated each pilot into incorrectly diagnosing the source of the problem.

10.The crew’s performance suggests that some elements of the company’s training program did not reach the targeted objectives regarding the coordination of crew members, the regulations concerning take-off limits, the recognition of an out-of-trim condition, the autopilot use and the understanding and application of abnormal procedures.

[BadgerGirl]

With only one pilot, are there any additional health requirements? For instance, healthy weight, non-smoker...
to lessen the risk of sudden events such as cardiac events, stroke, etc?
I guess the medic aren't cross-trained to fly a plane, though perhaps it's not a bad idea considering the situation.

[BadgerGirl]

So, on the off-chance anyone is interested... does anyone have time to call a few states and find out if they run one or two-pilot? I almost have Canada done, but the U.S. is going to be time consuming.
So many states, so little time...

[Prairie Chicken]

BadgerGirl, there are no additional medical/health requirements to fly single-pilot. Medical requirements are stricter for commercial pilots than for private, but once you hold a Category 1 medical (for commercial ops) you are medically qualified to fly any civilian aircraft. Pilots older than 40 must have medicals more frequently than those under 40. For a Cat 1, those under 40 must have the medical exam every year; those over 40 must have it every six months. Pilot medicals are done by designated Civil Aviation Medical Examiners.

Clear as mud?

[BadgerGirl]

Yup! thanks!

[Prairie Chicken]

Oh, before someone catches me up on this, there is a medical restriction that can be placed on a pilot that he fly "as or with co-pilot" if he has some specific medical conditions. This is a rare situation though & I'm sure beyond where you need to go.

[snoopy]

"Oh, before someone catches me up on this, there is a medical restriction that can be placed on a pilot that he fly "as or with co-pilot" if he has some specific medical conditions. This is a rare situation though & I'm sure beyond where you need to go."

Last I checked, women fly too!

Cheers,
Kirsten B.

[Prairie Chicken]

Ah Snoopy, that's a silly rumor that has been circulating for a while. It couldn't possibly be true!

[Lurch]

Ah Snoopy, that's a silly rumor that has been circulating for a while. It couldn't possibly be true!

I've even been told that there's a group called "Women in Aviation" They must be pulling my leg. These Women want more and more rights, next thing we know they will want to vote as well.

Lurch

[bizjets101]

News Update CKOM News.

The Saskatchewan government is speaking out after an air ambulance plane crashed while trying to land in Maple Creek on Jan. 3, 2011.
The plane could take between three and six months to get repaired, but executive director of acute and emergency services with the ministry of health Deb Jordan says there isn't a concern.

"We are looking at re-deploying an aircraft from Executive Air in Regina up to air ambulance in Saskatoon, and we expect the retrofits will be completed by this weekend," said Jordan.

While there were no patients on board, the damage itself will cost about $1 million and will be covered by insurance.

Jordan says they wanted to make sure a plan was in place before releasing the news to the media, although they did have a communications person on hand in Maple Creek the day the plane went down.

"So we moved on to contingency planning to get us back up to three aircrafts," Jordan reasoned.

[ArcticKat]

Greetings Everyone.

I was just directed to this thread and website from a colleague and after diligently reading through every post in this thread I have a few things to add. Mainly just information for questions that have been asked, but not answered.

First, a little history. I am a flight medic who has worked with Sask Air Amb. I am also a pilot, but not with much experience as I just acquired my PPL in August 2010 and have only flown C150 and C172. I will not pretend to know what the pilot should have done in this case because I have no clue, but I can fill in some blanks regarding operational aspects. All I can say is what I would have done in relation to my limited experience and type of aircraft. I wouldn't have tried landing without being able to see the runway clearly.

1. In my experience, if the pilots have any doubt, they will contact the ambulance service at the location they are flying into and have the ambulance actually drive the length of the runway to investigate it to ensure it is adequate for a safe landing. If the pilot did not do this he was likely confident the runway was safe to land on. Having said that there was no reason that the ambulance could not have checked the runway first because it was likely parked at the ramp waiting for the plane to land and has radio communications with the aircraft on 158.760.

2. re. Loading assistance. There is typically a minimum flight crew of three on board, the pilot and two or more medical personnel. Additionally, there is an ambulance at both ends with two medics on board. (usually) There is more than sufficient people power to load the aircraft, but it is the responsibility of the pilot to oversee the loading and ensure it is appropriately completed. Air ambulance never ever ever "hot loads" a patient, but a 2nd pilot may still be of assistance with preflight checks on the flight deck.

3. re. Experience. Sask Air Amb pilots have a minimum 10,000 hours with extensive bush experience and are all Airline Transport Pilots.

4. re. The Aerodrome. According to the Canadian Flight Supplement, (CFS) Maple Creek is in the Edmonton FIC, but the flight originated in Saskatoon, Winnipeg FIC. As Badgergirl says, the pilot would have checked with his FIC and the information was not communicated from Edmonton. It is an uncontrolled aerodrome and uses Unicom 122.8

5. @BadgerGirl. Funny you should mention Big Beaver. My wife grew up there and my in-laws still live there.

I think that about covers what I have to add. Now I'm off to find a "Welcome to the Forums" or "Tell us about you" thread to introduce myself properly.

[BadgerGirl]

The latest story, after I had the chance to do a little more digging.
Like hours and hours and days and nights of digging...
http://thebadger.ca/2011/01/13/exclusiv ... ambulance/

Oh, and an op-ed on the two pilot/one pilot issue:
http://thebadger.ca/2011/01/13/governme ... ot-policy/

[+TSRAGR]

B-Girl,

Interesting article.

There are many opinions on 1 VS 2 pilot ops. You would be wise to take the information received from this or any net forum with a grain of salt.

Many ops. are conducted single pilot without lowering safety standards.

Chris Oleson was either misquoted or mistaken regarding single pilot ops. for private contractors in Saskatchewan. They are in fact conducted on a regular basis with the full knowledge and approval of Transport Canada, Saskatchewan Health and major aviation underwriters.

[BadgerGirl]

He was misinformed, I suppose.
I'll review the interview, which is taped of course, but I am 100% sure already I wouldn't have misquoted him.
Of course, nothing like a little paranoia to inspire me to re-listen though!

B-Girl,

Interesting article.

There are many opinions on 1 VS 2 pilot ops. You would be wise to take the information received from this or any net forum with a grain of salt.

Many ops. are conducted single pilot without lowering safety standards.

Chris Oleson was either misquoted or mistaken regarding single pilot ops. for private contractors in Saskatchewan. They are in fact conducted on a regular basis with the full knowledge and approval of Transport Canada, Saskatchewan Health and major aviation underwriters.

[Cat Driver]

BadgerGirl your a very impressive reporter and your tenacity is to be admired and I would like you to know you have my respect and support.

When you start to wade in the pool of freedom of information you may find that like most other government services it can be a sham.

I have copied this bit you wrote:

. One pilot can watch gauges while another surveys the landing strip – there are countless reasons why the two-pilot system is safer and there is plenty of data and research to back it up.

I learned that method of crew resource management when I first started to fly two crew airplanes many decades ago and it has been in use in the military long before I learned the method.

It is called " P.M.A. " which stands for "pilot monitored approach " and in my opinion is the best method for safe approaches and landings in low visibility or low ceiling conditions or any other difficult landing condition.

As to those who suggest you not pay any attention to advice given on this aviation forum because it may not be reliable I hope you take into consideration that I not only have been in this business for a very long time ...I also have a strong enough belief in the advice and answers I post here to back it up by not needing anonymity to protect my opinion.

. .

[+TSRAGR]

Cat,

I did not say don't pay any attention to what you get from the site. I said take it with a grain of salt and remember that this is the internet. In other words be cautious.

Everyone here is not you and everyone here is not necessarily qualified to pass judgement on some issues.

No disrespect to you or anyone else was intended.

[Cat Driver]

No disrespect to you or anyone else was intended.

No problem.

I obviously have a thick skin so to speak...or I'm totally out of touch.

[lowlevel]

Badgergirl, I am just curious if you have talked to transport canada to see what the guidelines are for our airport operators to follow, as far as snow removal and runway conditions. The reason I ask this, is because when I look at those pictures of that nice king air all bent up, I keep on seeing that windrow of snow over a foot tall on the edge and I don't see anyrunway lights on the far side of the runway. Was there a notam saying there was a large windrow of snow on the edge of the runway, beacause barring any aircraft malfunctions (which is possible and we will find out), I believe it was the runway conditions and the neglect of the airport operator who are mainly to blame. Now I am a believer that 2 crew is better and maybe you can convince transport canada that the king air 200 is unsafe single pilot. Like I said earlier the news out on the street, out there in Saskatchewan was that they were going to go 2 crew. So after you finish being a heartless reporter digging up and posting confidential material (god help the poor employee that leaked that out) in your little badger newspaper, I hope you continue the fighting mode and help the aviation industry in getting these airport operators held accoutable for their runways in these small towns.

Sorry for the rampage, but I just hate seeing runways left in such poor condition, and shame on you maple creek, when obviously you guys are supported by the Government of Saskatchewan's Lifegaurd fleet (by the way nice looking airplane Saskatchewan).

[Siddley Hawker]

Last I checked, women fly too!

And some of them do a pretty good job at it when things go pear-shaped at a great rate.

[snoopy]

Why thank you, kind sir...
Kirsten B.

[BadgerGirl]

I did yes, and they say the snow was within guidelines - which is four inches or less of fluffy snow. However, there are no firm regulations pertaining to these airports either, according to Transport Canada.
Transport Canada says there was one inch at the center of the runway and three inches to the sides of it.
Also, the town did call in the conditions to Nav Canada that morning, and they were out twice that morning to check snow depth and drifting.
In essence, Transport Canada cleared the town of any wrongdoing.
That said, I think the council here is going to ensure the runway is cleared in the future, and they are looking at purchasing whatever equipment is needed to better improve the conditions.
And, I suspect this story will have caused other towns to take a look at their own runways and pay better mind to their conditions as well.

Badgergirl, I am just curious if you have talked to transport canada to see what the guidelines are for our airport operators to follow, as far as snow removal and runway conditions. The reason I ask this, is because when I look at those pictures of that nice king air all bent up, I keep on seeing that windrow of snow over a foot tall on the edge and I don't see anyrunway lights on the far side of the runway. Was there a notam saying there was a large windrow of snow on the edge of the runway, beacause barring any aircraft malfunctions (which is possible and we will find out), I believe it was the runway conditions and the neglect of the airport operator who are mainly to blame. Now I am a believer that 2 crew is better and maybe you can convince transport canada that the king air 200 is unsafe single pilot. Like I said earlier the news out on the street, out there in Saskatchewan was that they were going to go 2 crew. So after you finish being a heartless reporter digging up and posting confidential material (god help the poor employee that leaked that out) in your little badger newspaper, I hope you continue the fighting mode and help the aviation industry in getting these airport operators held accoutable for their runways in these small towns.

Sorry for the rampage, but I just hate seeing runways left in such poor condition, and shame on you maple creek, when obviously you guys are supported by the Government of Saskatchewan's Lifegaurd fleet (by the way nice looking airplane Saskatchewan).

[snoopy]

That is really awesome news - hope it gets followed up on (by the town, and of course by you - in the news)! It is nice to see prompt, positive changes being made with a view to improvement, rather than the more typical blame game with the resultant expectation that someone else fix the problem. Thank you for sharing!
Cheers,
Kirsten B.

[turbo-prop]

Maybe PC-12 and caravan shouldn't be allowed to be flown IFR since 2 engines are better then one. What hapens when ornge is flying around northern Ontario is crappy weather and there is no where to glide too? I think they have there own problems in Ontario to worry about, instead of doing studies on other operators. Does the public there realize the risk of only having one engine up front?

[seniorpumpkin]

Oh no you didn't! That's the biggest can of worms on this site, and you went ahead and opened it here. Can we please put a lid on that puppy before things get out of control?