Crash @ North Spirit Lake Ont (4 dead, 1 survivor)

[Go Juice]

If I recall correctly, the the main tanks have baffles to prevent fuel starvation to the engine while you're not straight and level. If he forgot to switch back to mains and then did his "circuit" maybe in the turn one of them starved and quit, that combined to low altitude, bad vis, home made approach ( allegedly ) things can start to go wrong pretty quick for a low time guy on the machine.


It's all speculation tho... still sad

[Cat Driver]

Why would he feather if he lost power because he ran out of fuel on an aux tank?

[Go Juice]

Maybe he had the selector on mais but had a selector malfunction or something.... Who knows?

[Doc]

I'm not buying the engine out theory. Here's why. Landed level, straight ahead, more or less in line with the runway. If he had one feathered, and was trying to make the runway, but for some reason couldn't, he would have (I believe) had a very hard time keeping it straight on one as his speed and altitude bled off. I'm not buying the idea that he reduced the power in the running engine and landed straight ahead with a runway his 12 o'clock, if as the passenger stated, the weather was "not bad..." Yet, there he was, gear down right on, or very close to centre line.
I don't think the video was conclusive evidence that the prop was feathered.
Of course, none of us were there, I just can't see feathering an engine in a Navajo and continuing a landing at a remote spot like North Spirit, on one engine? More likely, he would have cleaned it up and gone to YRL? Of course, if he were all loaded up with ice, he would have landed....still, the direction of the airplane relative to the runway makes me think both engines were running.
It would be interesting to see the position of the prop controls? Amazed nobody has checked them out yet?

[Redneck_pilot86]

Of course, none of us were there, I just can't see feathering an engine in a Navajo and continuing a landing at a remote spot like North Spirit, on one engine? More likely, he would have cleaned it up and gone to YRL? Of course, if he were all loaded up with ice, he would have landed....

Doc, I agree with 99% of what you say on here, but if he did have an engine failure with a perfectly good runway right in front of him, why the hell would you abandon that guaranteed landing and head for Red Lake, single engine, in crap weather, with a loaded airplane? To hell with the airplane, to hell with the company, get it on the ground with you and your passengers safe, and let maintenance deal with it.

[cncpc]

OK, so it's been a while since I flew the Chieftain, but what's the average time to blow the AUX tanks when you forget to switch? It's bugging me because I think I had the crap scared out of me around the 2 hour mark in cruise.

If it had happened at low altitude, iced and on a low vis approach, not sure I'd have reacted favourably to a sudden unexpected loss of power at that moment.

I would say there was plenty of fuel in the tanks due to how intense the post crash fire was, yet that #1 prop sure does look feathered to me.


A separate question. Skyward had it's OC pulled for a lot less that the stuff Keystone has pulled over the years... and I read on this thread they're still flying? Really?

I have it in my head that it's around 1:40 in the 310, so probably about 1:30 in the Chieftain, maybe less.

Something is odd about the fire. I'd say broken lines, something ignites it, boost pumps still running. I mean, the thing crashed into snow and looks to be all together outside of the fire damage.

[cncpc]

If I recall correctly, the the main tanks have baffles to prevent fuel starvation to the engine while you're not straight and level. If he forgot to switch back to mains and then did his "circuit" maybe in the turn one of them starved and quit, that combined to low altitude, bad vis, home made approach ( allegedly ) things can start to go wrong pretty quick for a low time guy on the machine.

I've had two or three quit while on the auxs doing LIDAR and it was always in the turns. Long trips doing lines, maxing out what's in the auxs, focusing on the screen, I don't think it was ever more than three or four seconds till the restart. Operator in back never even noticed any of them.

[flyinthebug]

Of course, none of us were there, I just can't see feathering an engine in a Navajo and continuing a landing at a remote spot like North Spirit, on one engine? More likely, he would have cleaned it up and gone to YRL? Of course, if he were all loaded up with ice, he would have landed....

Doc, I agree with 99% of what you say on here, but if he did have an engine failure with a perfectly good runway right in front of him, why the hell would you abandon that guaranteed landing and head for Red Lake, single engine, in crap weather, with a loaded airplane? To hell with the airplane, to hell with the company, get it on the ground with you and your passengers safe, and let maintenance deal with it.

With all due respect Doc, I also agree with Redneck_pilot86. You had me until the suggestion that he would overshoot on 1 fan and head back 125 NM (*edit to correct distance to 65 nm, but stand by my comment) to YRL? With a load? That is not a decision I would ever make my friend. If what the pax says is even close to true, he had a visual on the runway and was circling waiting for the plow then was "cleared to land" by the plow driver. He lined the CDI up on his GPS and started a straight in final(BS approach). IF IF his engine did quit, I cant see him cleanin it up and heading to YRL. Its too far to go on one fan...when you have a perfectly good 3000 ft in front of you (somewhere).

I just find it hard to believe that in this senario, the PIC would make the decision to fly 125 NM (*edit corrected as above to 65NM) when he was already overloaded (not in weight terms in work terms) and im sure he was lookin to set her down and shut er down. Once you get behind a PA31, they are slick and slippery and can bite you hard if you dont get back ahead of her.

My 2 cents.
Fly safe all.

[Gorgons]

CYRL is only 65 NM away.

[flyinthebug]

CYRL is only 65 NM away.

Ive done that route 100 times DUH..my mistake, yes around 65 NM is correct. Nonetheless, with one engine on a PA31-350 and a load, it would be a long 65NM back to YRL.

[SoundAir11]

Two engines or one engine..he still should have made it to the runway..what prevented him from doing so? back to square one..ice?..blizzard? or?

[CID]

Lots of odd things about this. A few issues that still stand out in my mind:

1. Why is the flight time so long? It appears to be about 1 hour longer than it should have been. Did he get lost?
2. Why does that prop no only look feathered, it's not even bent. It doesn't look like it was making significant power when it hit but that really depends on how hard the snow and ice was when it hit.
3. If he got lost, he may not have had enough fuel to go to an alternate but there certainly was enough fuel on board to feed a significant fire.
4. Why did he descend below MSA in IMC if he wasn't experiencing a serious problem or lacked enough fuel to divert?

[jona]

Time to put webcams in some of these places.

http://akweathercams.faa.gov/sitelist.php

[The Hammer]

Many of you have many thousands of hours flying and are using that experience to make these educated guesses. This pilot did not. 100-150 hrs on type was the time period I watched myself the most because I had enough time to feel overconfident in my abilities but still too stupid to recognize that my confidence and abilities were not on equal terms. I learned that the hard way when a room mate killed himself and a pax in an airplane that was simple, but not simple enough to match his confidence level. I also pulled a few boner's around that experience level. I hated that 100-200 hr on type period.

Had he ever even experienced a blown tank before? I remember my first time 15 years later and it was in cruise. (I also remember the first time the pilot door opened in flight too, my lunch bag is still somewhere between ywg and yiv).

There a lots of decisions I made in my career that I would never made now (some were employers and some where flying decisions). Most of us catch a break and learn from our mistakes, a few do not.

The video is wrong because min vis is 1 mile with ops spec (that KEE has, as does almost every other operator because it is simple to get).


PS North Dakota has more new style AWOS stations than all of canada (Old and New combined). Where do those fuel taxes go??

[180]

The speculation in this thread is getting out of control folks...

RIP to the pilot and passengers, thoughts and prayers to their family and friends.

[Cat Driver]

Sorry Cat, I will not give an opinion either way except to ask that you be respectful of the family that may read your comments in here.
Bandaid

[Clodhopper]

I'm getting tired of this reluctance to speculate about accidents that kill people, if we don't speculate how do low time pilots get to learn about how many things there that can suddenly go wrong when you find you are in over your depth?

I completely agree with you, Cat. Most low-time pilots who find themselves either right seat or left seat on something similar to a Navajo/Chieftain, will not be on the aircraft long. With movement the way it's been over the last year or so, I'd be surprised if someone spent more than a year in an aircraft like that, except by choice.

I'm sure alot of Navajo and Chieftain pilots (I hope low-timers in particular) have been reading every post in this thread. Even though its all speculation, most of what has been brought up is very plausible. And we've outlined at least a dozen possible chains of events that could have lead to this. Most of these young guys/gals won't have enough time to figure out all of it on their own, and won't even be on their Navajo or Chieftain when the final report comes out in approximately two years. Now those low timers may remember something they've read on here, or even had a "light-bulb" moment about something they've recently experienced or seen.

What might need to be done is a "pilot/event discussion thread" and a "condolences" thread, separated so that those who don't like to speculate have somewhere to express themselves.

[Dayofthedogs]

Constructive speculation is great, but that's not exactly what all this has been.

We have found out that the pilot was 41... previous posters were up in arms about how the operator threw a 20 something year old guy to the wolves by bullying him into flying into unsafe weather. At 41 years old you should have enough life experience to know how to say no.

It has also been posted that the pilot must have been flying illegally because a resident or two described "blizzard" conditions.... Yet a medevac made it in shortly after the accident as well as pilots who posted the weather was 3000 ft and good vis in the area in and around the time.

Also was the report from the passenger who survived who said weather was decent and the aircraft circled waiting for equipment to clear the runway.

Everyone was so sure he was on a bogus gps approach because he was lined up on centre line 1 mile back...... except if he was visual with the airport he also would have been lined up with the runway.

Now we "all" think that one engine must have quit because it looked feathered in the post crash pictures.... Hmmmmmm.

Anyone who has been taking media reports, or "first hand witnesses" who have absolutely no aviation backround and enjoy hearing their voices on the radio as fact are in fact not producing constructive speculation.

Not to say good things can't come from this discussion/post but let's get some kind of grasp on reality before everyone starts shooting off about what they believe happened.

[CID]

Dayofthedogs, I read what you wrote and all I can think of is "so what"? Nobody here is kidding themselves that speculation is going to have any tangible effect on the eventual outcome. It's just discussion based on experience and the information at hand. And that discussion gets refined as more information is made available. And so what?

[Cat Driver]

Looks like CFIT to me judging by the pictures.

If an engine had the prop feathered why has there not been any mention of it by all the people who have examined the wreck, especially the government inspector/'s who looked at it?

Any Navajo I ever flew was quite capable of flying an approach with an engine feathered, unless it was way, way over gross weight or contaminated by ice.

So we just have to either not discuss it or speculate.

[pdw]

A "CFIT". You're probably right, and no speculation there, it's pretty much guaranteed that's what it will be named. Probably not always fair though, given the fact that the approach was parallel to an 'unpredictable front' and the height of its transition experienced a mile final (given vague weather details available). Those irregular winds (Xknots gusting Xknots) are not available to the pilot when needed most, yet we will again be shown the CFIT description, "Controlled Flight Into Terrain". Not necessarily fair if "Control" (ie simple weather data on short final) is unavailable because it does not exist.

[flyinthebug]

Guys...a simple solution is to use the First Air thread as a model. We had one thread started about the accident. As speculation began to surface, we requested that a 2nd thread be started called "pilot discussion". It worked well. Those that wished to pass their condolences (or read ones passed on) were able to do so without having to read a bunch of pilots speculate on how their mother/father/sister/brother/husband died. CID is correct in saying its simple human decency to offer condolences...and if we start a 2nd thread, im sure we can speculate til the cows come home... without offending anyone but ourselves.
Lets leave the religious debate for a more appropriate forum. We can all be decent and respectful whether we believe in God or not.

Fly safe all.

[Cat Driver]

Aviation and aviation safety is a subject I have a fair amount of experience in, I am truly interested in factual examination of any accident.

Without facts we are left with speculation.

[robertsailor1]

I have a good friend that sat on the aviation accident board (whatever the proper name was) and he tells me that as good as they have the science down in accident reviews there is still some speculation.

[cncpc]

What is that slogan on the safety letter? "Learn from the mistakes of others, you won't live long enough to make them all yourself". I'm very sure that we in this forum are far ahead of public knowledge on what caused the Resolute Crash, the NT Air crash, and others as they may have arisen. Call it speculation or whatever you want, this is a forum of pilots who go out in the morning to carry out those hard responsibilities. If there is some event from the day before, and some post on here that may shed some light on how such a thing could have been prevented, speculate away.
My only other comment is that we owe it to dead pilots to fully understand what happened to them and their aircraft before pointing fingers.


I editted out the off topic comments.
Bandaid