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

[phillyfan]

Edited myself, before the "old boys club" got me.

[Prairie Chicken]

I prepared an analysis of the info that came to light on the forum as a result of this accident. I've posted it in the thread Buying Aviation Safetly ???????? if anyone wants to check it out.

[55+]

For those who may be interested, 2 RNAV(GNSS) IAPs are to be published effective April 5/2012 HAT 638(RWY13) and 561(RWY 31) vis 2 and 1/3/4

In public domain ie CAP.

Info taken from AIRAC issue 03 Feb 02/2012

[chesty]

That didn't take long.

[Doc]

That didn't take long.

This was slated to happen long before the accident.

[55+]

That didn't take long.

This was slated to happen long before the accident.

Initial designs , no doubt. But moving the publication date forward and dropping something else that was less sensitive is certainly viable as well. I have seen that happen when there was/will be attention drawn to a specific situation.........

Not to suggest of course, lack of published procedures will be a contributing factor in this incident.

[Doc]

That didn't take long.

This was slated to happen long before the accident.

Initial designs , no doubt. But moving the publication date forward and dropping something else that was less sensitive is certainly viable as well. I have seen that happen when there was/will be attention drawn to a specific situation.........

Not to suggest of course, lack of published procedures will be a contributing factor in this incident.

The sooner you close the gate after the horse has left the barn, the guiltier you look for leaving the gate open in the first place. A typical "knee jerk" reaction, a tad too late. Not that anyone can say if it would have made a difference. It well may not have.

[cdnpilot77]

The sooner you close the gate after the horse has left the barn, the guiltier you look for leaving the gate open in the first place. A typical "knee jerk" reaction, a tad too late. Not that anyone can say if it would have made a difference. It well may not have.

To utilize your earlier quote and sum it all up

"This accident was slated to happen long before the accident.

[55+]

I don't think the lack of a published IAP will be a cause/contributing factor. If there isn't any published procedure, then operations are considered VFR. If a pilot flies below VFR or has some type of home-spun procedure for operations below VFR and crashes, that will no doubt be considered as a contributing factor.

In pub cycles and AIRAC dates, stuff get moved around all the time for whatever reason(s). RNAV Departures and amendments from YYZ would get high priority/coordination that 3 NDB A IAPs on say, coastal Labrador if all were on the same cycle. The LAB stuff would be moved to next cycle if time got tight and designs need further amendments for the RNAV YYZ .

[chesty]

How many reserve's are left without a published approach in that area? Is North Spirit one of the last?

[AUGER9]

How many reserve's are left without a published approach in that area? Is North Spirit one of the last?

In NWO, there's NT3 and YPO still without.

[pdw]

"This accident was slated to happen long before the accident.

Not really. With the icing involved, any delay with an 'unexpected circling' is known to make piloting busy (faster speed), so that approach simply got tricky (not to mention potential engine out) while re-orientating from a straight-in expectation following 'good time' in tailwind. Unfortunately, without accurate altimeter (hPa) and temperature records for the site it's unlikely to calculate for presence of a shear in the accident sequence.

[cdnpilot77]

I was not just referring to the lack of Instrument approach

[pdw]

OK.
Fairly void of WX-info up in that area, didn't think WX recording equipment was so expensive that it gets overlooked in the budget. Maybe the leaders weren't aware of the importance to get more in tune with the times, to get hooked up with the networks on an hourly basis ?

[chesty]

"This accident was slated to happen long before the accident.

Not really. With the icing involved, any delay with an 'unexpected circling' is known to make piloting busy (faster speed), so that approach simply got tricky (not to mention potential engine out) while re-orientating from a straight-in expectation following 'good time' in tailwind. Unfortunately, without accurate altimeter (hPa) and temperature records for the site it's unlikely to calculate for presence of a shear in the accident sequence.

If what you say about the icing is part of the story, mabe turning around would of helped! mabe even avoided a few things you suggest happend!

[snoopy]

How many reserve's are left without a published approach in that area? Is North Spirit one of the last?

The issue isn't just whether there is an instrument approach at the destination airport. Part of the RNAV capability of the airport requires the commercial operator to meet other requirements: the aircraft equipment must be approved, functioning and contain a current database; each crew member has to be trained and approved for RNAV procedures and the company itself has to be approved to fly RNAV procedures. Aside from the cost of TSO'd equipment and maintaining database currency, the approvals are fairly easy - albeit time-consuming to achieve. Unfortunately there are a lot of operators/pilots who don't meet all, or even any of the requirements.

Without any regulatory oversight left in this country, what is the point of having an approved approach if the types of operators/pilots who were pushing the envelope in the first place are left to freely break different rules?

Cheers,
Kirsten B.

[flyinthebug]

How many reserve's are left without a published approach in that area? Is North Spirit one of the last?

Without any regulatory oversight left in this country, what is the point of having an approved approach if the types of operators/pilots who were pushing the envelope in the first place are left to freely break different rules?

Cheers,
Kirsten B.

+1 Snoopy! Im willing to bet that if we went through Keystone`s "private" files, we would find a fudged approach for NSL. I flew for a few years in the NWO area and I knew several companies in that area that created their own homemade approaches, and went to 5 funerals in one week because of this mentality. You are 100% correct Snoopy...until there is oversight like there once was (even as recent as 15 yrs ago), this accident will keep replaying over and over. Again ill preach that SMS is not working on the 703 level of aviation. Its like handing the keys of the asylum to the lunatics and letting them roam free.

Back when the threat of TC walking through your (703) door, and with their ability to shut you down on clerical errors in an audit had teeth, I dont recall hearing about as many accidents as I have in the past say 7-8 yrs. That is when SMS had begun being implemented across our country.

As Snoopy said, it really doesnt matter if there is a published approach or not, as these unregulated companies now have free rein to "do it like its always been done" (another famous douche bag operators famous line).

Fly safe all.

[CID]

Without any regulatory oversight left in this country, what is the point of having an approved approach if the types of operators/pilots who were pushing the envelope in the first place are left to freely break different rules?

There have been slimey operators during the entire history of commercial aviation in Canada. Unless you strap an inspector to a seat on every flight they will continue to be around. However, I truly think your comments are over the top. I'm sure me stating that will provoke all sorts of angst from the anti-regulator group but the fact is that everyone SAYS they want more oversight, more "safety", absolute regulation but nobody wants to pay for it. So instead the liability has been transferred to the operators and they don't like it one bit.

Accountability sucks doesn't it?

[DHCdriver]

The issue isn't just whether there is an instrument approach at the destination airport. Part of the RNAV capability of the airport requires the commercial operator to meet other requirements: the aircraft equipment must be approved, functioning and contain a current database; each crew member has to be trained and approved for RNAV procedures and the company itself has to be approved to fly RNAV procedures. Aside from the cost of TSO'd equipment and maintaining database currency, the approvals are fairly easy - albeit time-consuming to achieve. Unfortunately there are a lot of operators/pilots who don't meet all, or even any of the requirements.

Without any regulatory oversight left in this country, what is the point of having an approved approach if the types of operators/pilots who were pushing the envelope in the first place are left to freely break different rules?

Cheers,
Kirsten B.

Thats a +2 for me, well said. DHC

[Doc]

. Again ill preach that SMS is not working on the 703 level of aviation. Its like handing the keys of the asylum to the lunatics and letting them roam free.

Love the line about the "keys to the asylum....."!! Classic! And very TRUE!
SMS for companies like (but not exclusive to) Keystone is the biggest JOKE to come out of Transport Canada since the extinction of the dinosaurs.....

[Edo]

...In pub cycles and AIRAC dates, stuff get moved around all the time for whatever reason(s). RNAV Departures and amendments from YYZ would get high priority/coordination that 3 NDB A IAPs on say, coastal Labrador if all were on the same cycle. The LAB stuff would be moved to next cycle if time got tight and designs need further amendments for the RNAV YYZ .

Now that is just RETARDED.

You offer way more safety bang for your buck replacing the 3 NBD A with RVNAV. Who the F cares if YYZ gets ANOTHER RNAV STAR!! Sure it speeds things up but the existing STAR, even VOR based is safe. The sooner every NDB A disappears the better.

To defer a procedure at an airport that has no approaches, just so the "center of the universe" can flow a bit faster.....well to me that constitutes negligence.

[55+]

...In pub cycles and AIRAC dates, stuff get moved around all the time for whatever reason(s). RNAV Departures and amendments from YYZ would get high priority/coordination that 3 NDB A IAPs on say, coastal Labrador if all were on the same cycle. The LAB stuff would be moved to next cycle if time got tight and designs need further amendments for the RNAV YYZ .

Now that is just RETARDED.

You offer way more safety bang for your buck replacing the 3 NBD A with RVNAV. Who the F cares if YYZ gets ANOTHER RNAV STAR!! Sure it speeds things up but the existing STAR, even VOR based is safe. The sooner every NDB A disappears the better.

To defer a procedure at an airport that has no approaches, just so the "center of the universe" can flow a bit faster.....well to me that constitutes negligence.

I didn't say that is what happened(because there is no published IAP), I was giving an example of what can/may/did when I worked there. Unfortunately there is a priority in cycles and an SID(RNAV) or an RNAV DEP would get placed in priority for the busiest spot in the country(CYYZ) compared to(again as an example) NDB A IAPs. Your are very correct on NDB - the 1950's steam driven technology.

With your VAST KNOWLEDGE on AIS Publication cycles/Instrument Approach Design, would a CAP/RCAP IAP made any difference in this incident especially if all the factual evidence hasn't been released as of yet

[Doc]

Part of me would like to see everything go back to the "good old days" when pilots were MEN! We didn't need no stinking approaches! We flew Daks. On skis! We didn't even have strips. We landed on lakes and dropped off the freight/fuel oil etc., to whoever showed up to pick it up. Yup, the odd airplane ended up rolled into a ball, but it was because we were manly MEN! We had an NDB of sorts in Wiebenville. The thing lived in an old refrigerator somewhere in the bush near the "runway". Really. In a fridge! My point? There's nothing that says a reserve MUST have an IFR approach. This mentality that the bloody "pop and chips" just can't wait till tomorrow has always been a COD for pilots. IFR approaches won't make it safer to fly into reserves for pilots who disregard minimums. Companies just "push" these dumb fu&ks harder......nothing will change. It never has. It never will.

[Jastapilot]

Talk about getting sidetracked! Seriously Doc! The issues facing a modern pilot are no different from when we all used to be 'men', as you say. Steam driven vs glass makes not a damn bit of difference! The issues here are the same as they always have been. Greasy slimey operators who are expert manipulators and exploiters of young, impressionable, inexperienced pilots! The reason guys like us ARE vocal on forums such as these,(and local bars) is that we went through it all, and there's a reason why we experienced types wouldn't work for certain operators... it's because we know better, AND we wouldn't put up with the crap they'd attempt to push on us!

So, PLEASE stick to the real issues here! I've lived both lives, the steam driven bush bitc4, and the white collar glass kid, and when you cut through the crap, it's really the same job, just a different uniform, and, maybe a few less flats of pop to ..

Cheers Bro.

[Doc]

Sorry.....I really did enjoy the wine though. Australian Shiraz, don't you know. Showing my frustration a wee bit, but of course, Jastapilot is correct.