Another plane crash near Brenda Mine west of Kelowna

[MikeGolfEcho]

I think they mean PA30

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... 91-33-.htm

[iflyforpie]

Not PA-39?

Hoping for the best for the remaining souls, and my sincerest condolences to all affected.

[Diadem]

I have a friend in the area who flies a PA-30. If anyone knows the reg or the owner please PM me.

[Ref Plus 10]

Ya, to me too, I have a friend flying a PA30 out of ZBB, news has reported that's where it was headed...If anyone knows the registration please pass it along, many thanks.

Ref

[cncpc]

The aircraft departed Penticton for Boundary Bay at 3 pm, according to the Province.

[MikeGolfEcho]

No news that I can find on the reg yet, but the news this morning said that 1 person was confirmed dead, the 3 others on board are in hospital and in 'serious' condition... Hope they pull-through

[matrix]

Looks like C-GLGJ

http://www.castanet.net

[Diadem]

Environment Canada data shows max temps for Penticton and Kelowna yesterday were 35 and 33 respectively. I won't begin to speculate on the causes of this accident, but there are far too many crashes of planes taking off out of YYF and turning into the mountains when the density altitude precludes climbs to cruising altitude. I implore anyone flying in the area during the summer to climb to sufficient altitude to clear the mountains before leaving the Okanagan Valley, so if you discover you've reached an unexpectedly low service ceiling you have room to turn around. Better yet, wait until the next morning when it's cool and calm. Don't put yourselves and your passengers in unnecessary danger.

[bizjets101]

C-GLGJ Correct tail number Owner's Company website.

Owner listed a Comox residence and Delta Business address with Registrar. Aircraft was based at Boundry Bay.


photo big.vern81/Flickr photo was taken at Boundry Bay Airport.

[sidestick stirrer]

Flew a Mountain-Flying training flight yesterday in the late morning, routing from the Fraser Valley to Pemberton at ten-five and back via valley crawling as low as comfortable.
On the departure, the viz was good but not clear. As we climbed, the viz worsened until it reached its worse around eight thousand, allowing only views straight down. Further climbing was required to ensure clearance from the high terrain ahead and the viz improved above ten.
Same issue on descent, both the student and I very carefully watching the heading and map reading as we descended back into the haze only to pop out the bottom into better viz around six thousand.
The return trip had much-better viz as we stayed below the layer.
I initially did not think this thick haze layer was forest-fire smoke as it did not have that bluish hue, smell of burnt wood or lay thicker near the ground.
Last night, I learned this haze was indeed smoke from a forest fire but that the fire was in Siberia.
If this aircraft was climbing to anywhere near this altitude range, it may have been in reduced visibility coupled with looking into the sun....

[cgartly]

Very unfortunate incident, my thoughts and prayers are with those involved and their families. I hope the 3 survivors recover quickly.

While there is definitely an issue departing YYF and turning westbound as the terrain rises quite rapidly, it would appear these guys flew quite a bit north before turning west to go down near Brenda Mines which is just south of highway 97C.

I regularly depart CYLW for CYNJ and always turn direct once departing YLW's control zone or as soon as they allow upon departure. I fly a 160 hp Cessna 172 and have done the flight at near gross weight with high DA and never have issues outclimbing terrain by a significant margin.

I doubt either this or the previous Beaver incident were density altitude related, both have considerably more power than me in my 172.

I have no idea what could have caused this horrible crash but as with all accidents I'm sure there was a chain of events and it wasn't a single item.

[cncpc]

It is a long way off the direct route, and Penticton via Highway 3 to Keremous in the climb and you're home free.

Right now, there is no apparent reason to be up in that area, unless there was an intermediate stop in Merritt or Kamloops.

It seems to be a myth about this route that means confronting a steep grade over the mountains. That isn't necessary at all. Follow the road to Keremeos and 8500 will get you easily back into the Valley and down to ZBB.

[5x5]

Flew a Mountain-Flying training flight yesterday in the late morning, routing from the Fraser Valley to Pemberton at ten-five and back via valley crawling as low as comfortable.
On the departure, the viz was good but not clear. As we climbed, the viz worsened until it reached its worse around eight thousand, allowing only views straight down. Further climbing was required to ensure clearance from the high terrain ahead and the viz improved above ten.
Same issue on descent, both the student and I very carefully watching the heading and map reading as we descended back into the haze only to pop out the bottom into better viz around six thousand.

I find it ironic that this comment would be made in a thread related to an accident in the mountains. What did you think you were teaching the student flying through what was basically IMC - you couldn't see anywhere except straight down - in mountainous terrain? And "Further climbing was required to ensure clearance from the high terrain ahead" . I don't care how many people rag on me, but I find that truly reprehensible. As instructors, we always have to keep in mind that students will always emulate us and very often take whatever we show them and go even further. All the admonishments in the world like "I'm only doing this to show you what not to do" won't change that. Essentially you were teaching them that flying in perhaps the most challenging and dangerous terrain possible (mountains) for single engine VFR flight, doesn't actually require VMC as long as you read your map good and follow a heading.

Holy crap. And we wonder why accidents in dodgy weather in the mountains continue to happen.

[Broke4Sure]

5x5 Was that you that took the knock on the head with the prop in your avatar? From your comment I suspect it might be. Comments that attack a fellow pilot would be best handled by a personal PM

[5x5]

5x5 Was that you that took the knock on the head with the prop in your avatar? From your comment I suspect it might be. Comments that attack a fellow pilot would be best handled by a personal PM

For the most part I agree with you. And if you were to review my history you'd see I don't reply like this. In this case I thought long and hard before I responded publicly. I think it's a dangerous enough situation that my response would have value to others reading this thread and I'm willing to accept that in this case I may have hurt someone's feelings.

[cncpc]

5x5 Was that you that took the knock on the head with the prop in your avatar? From your comment I suspect it might be. Comments that attack a fellow pilot would be best handled by a personal PM

For the most part I agree with you. And if you were to review my history you'd see I don't reply like this. In this case I thought long and hard before I responded publicly. I think it's a dangerous enough situation that my response would have value to others reading this thread and I'm willing to accept that in this case I may have hurt someone's feelings.

I think 5X5's comment was well stated. This is an instructor pilot who posts on here that he was, with a student, flying in instrument conditions illegally and dangerously. He seemed oblivious to that fact himself. Many students and inexperienced pilots read this forum. Had 5X5 said nothing, they would be led to believe that what your man related was nothing out of the normal and begin doing it themselves, flying in mountains with no forward visibility, looking for reference directly below through a hole that could disappear and never be found again in a heartbeat.

The last thing I would do in a situation like this was a private message.

[c170b53]

Risk tolerance...everyone has their own limit, judgement and skill to consider. Why all the negativity? I'll guess many have strayed into the uncomfortable zone and lived to know better in the future and there's also the possibility to not learn anything for the next time as well. The more I fly the more I learn and mistakes will happen on good days and bad.

[MikeGolfEcho]

Risk tolerance...everyone has their own limit, judgement and skill to consider. Why all the negativity? I'll guess many have strayed into the uncomfortable zone and lived to know better in the future and there's also the possibility to not learn anything for the next time as well. The more I fly the more I learn and mistakes will happen on good days and bad.

I think the negativity stems from the fact people got badly hurt and, at this stage, one died. I think many read these forums/accident reports to try and learn from them... at least I do. It's serious stuff with serious (often negative) outcomes.

I also think from reading the other posts that the negativity stemmed from concern that a flight instructor (with more experience) was doing something dangerous/stupid/illegal in front of a student (with less experience).

So you're right - everyone has their own limit, judgement and skill to consider, and this may not have been demonstrated well to a student considering the circumstances of the students flight.

MGE

[iflyforpie]

I'm sorry, but getting caught in smoke or haze is completely unlike pushing on into IMC conditions from clouds or precip. As someone who chases smoke for a living, it can sneak up on even the best of us. You can stand on the ground and look at a CAVOK sky and go up flying and not be able to see anything. Even the angle of the sun or the quality of your windshield has a huge effect on what you can see.

This instructor was not pushing limits--he was caught in a situation that he didn't anticipate and is posting here to warn others. His actions were appropriate for the situation.

[cncpc]

I'm sorry, but getting caught in smoke or haze is completely unlike pushing on into IMC conditions from clouds or precip. As someone who chases smoke for a living, it can sneak up on even the best of us. You can stand on the ground and look at a CAVOK sky and go up flying and not be able to see anything. Even the angle of the sun or the quality of your windshield has a huge effect on what you can see.

This instructor was not pushing limits--he was caught in a situation that he didn't anticipate and is posting here to warn others. His actions were appropriate for the situation.

Read the post.

You do this same thing with a forestry guy on board and you ain't flying no more fire patrols.

This didn't "sneak up" on this guy. He deliberately flew in it and then made a descent through it, "watching our heading".

His post, at any rate, or ours, has nothing to do with this tragic accident, which as far as we know has nothing to do with smoke or haze.

[sidestick stirrer]

Thank you for your thoughts on my post.
I do not recall ever mentioning losing sight of the ground, enough visibility to establish our attitude nor getting off course or becoming unsure of our position, so any comments that we inadvertently bumbled into IFR conditions are not valid. The flight was carefully planned and plotted, right down to the drift lines that some belittle on this forum. We arrived at Pemberton right to the minute and landed back in the Fraser Valley two minutes early.
However, the smoke layer, which was the same color as the sky, did decrease flight visibility to less-than I would have liked as it detracted from the intent of the over-the-top portion of the flight.
Those with extensive mountain experience know well how the valleys can be Both smokey yet VFR and climbing on top of this haze permits VFR navigation by reference to the terrain that rises above the layer ( mountain tops), a lot easier than it sounds.
I have personally met and admire the young person who was flying this airplane and my post was only an attempt to perhaps suggest another factor that may have contributed to this incident.

[Diadem]

A wonderful little discussion to get us completely off-track. Might we now return to the original topic of discussion? Is there any word on the condition of the survivors?

[5x5]

Sorry if I misinterpreted the earlier post. However, I always thought that VFR required more than sight of the ground and also required forward visibility (bolding added to original text).

As we climbed, the viz worsened until it reached its worse around eight thousand, allowing only views straight down.

It seems to me forward visibility is somewhat important especially considering.....

Further climbing was required to ensure clearance from the high terrain ahead

And finally, all the best planning and line drawing in the world would never give me the confidence to intentionally fly VFR-over-the-top in mountainous terrain. I may be a chicken, but I plan to be clucking with the best of them when I'm old and grey.

[bizjets101]

From the link below;

An initial probe has found the plane had plenty of fuel when it crashed. Yearwood said it is now known that the plane was travelling away from a clearing when it struck a tree Mon-day afternoon. "We don't know whether it was trying to land in the clearing and overshot it, or was not trying to land in the clearing," he said.

Yearwood added visibility was affected because of smoke from forest fires in the region.

All three of the survivors, including one woman who was found conscious by rescue crews, are in critical condition in hospitals in Kelowna, Kamloops and Vancouver, he said. Investigators have not yet been able to interview the survivors because they are not doing well.

Vancouver Sun update

TSB photo of wreckage

[Diadem]

I know one of the victims, and I don't intend to start speculation on the background of this incident, but there's a quote from the Sun article above which I find perplexing, considering this was a privately-operated aircraft:

Smith's girlfriend had purchased the plane ride as a birth-day present for him, Angelopoulos said.