This accident has claimed its second life. RIP LS. I happened to be one of the pilots for the organ transplant team. Thanks to LS and her family, several people will be benefiting from new healthy organs.
A speedy recover to the remaining 2 people still in hospital.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Peachl ... story.html)
Another plane crash near Brenda Mine west of Kelowna
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister
-
wallypilot
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1646
- Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:59 pm
- Location: The Best Coast
-
godsrcrazy
- Rank 8
- Posts: 847
- Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 4:12 pm
Re: Another plane crash near Brenda Mine west of Kelowna
See the quote from the quote from the paper below. On the transport canada site this aircraft shows it is Private registered.
Sewell and Smith were "so happy and so great together," said Julia Angelopoulos, a friend of Smith's for 15 years.
She said Sewell had bought the plane trip for Smith as a 30th birthday present because he had wanted to cross it off his bucket list.
Sewell and Smith were "so happy and so great together," said Julia Angelopoulos, a friend of Smith's for 15 years.
She said Sewell had bought the plane trip for Smith as a 30th birthday present because he had wanted to cross it off his bucket list.
-
Diadem
- Rank 8
- Posts: 911
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:16 pm
- Location: A sigma left of the top of the bell curve
Re: Another plane crash near Brenda Mine west of Kelowna
I'm going to give the pilot the benefit of the doubt and assume that by "buying" this spokesperson means "contributing to the cost of the trip". However, if this was operating as a chisel charter, would that open up the pilot and owners to the possibility of criminal charges and lawsuits?godsrcrazy wrote:She said Sewell had bought the plane trip for Smith as a 30th birthday present because he had wanted to cross it off his bucket list.
Re: Another plane crash near Brenda Mine west of Kelowna
The pilot and LS were friends so she would have just been covering the costs associated with the flight is my guess.
-
wallypilot
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1646
- Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:59 pm
- Location: The Best Coast
Re: Another plane crash near Brenda Mine west of Kelowna
Oh, well thank you for being so understanding. (if you didn't sense the sarcasm there, please add it) Give your head a shake. People have died, the other 2 are still in hospital, one in very critical condition. You know nothing about the situation(i'm inferring from your comments). Every time a group of people who you don't personally know rent an airplane for the weekend, are you going to pass your all knowing judgement? Why even bother posting this crap? It was some friends out for a weekend trip. Who cares which one of the friends put the credit card down for the rental. For the record, at least one pilot on board was an experienced, professional, current aviator, and spent years flying commercially in this province and around the world.Diadem wrote:I'm going to give the pilot the benefit of the doubt and assume that by "buying" this spokesperson means "contributing to the cost of the trip". However, if this was operating as a chisel charter, would that open up the pilot and owners to the possibility of criminal charges and lawsuits?godsrcrazy wrote:She said Sewell had bought the plane trip for Smith as a 30th birthday present because he had wanted to cross it off his bucket list.
-
Diadem
- Rank 8
- Posts: 911
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:16 pm
- Location: A sigma left of the top of the bell curve
Re: Another plane crash near Brenda Mine west of Kelowna
I'm concerned because of the possibility one of my friends could be facing criminal and civil legal action. I probably know more about the current situation than you do, but I sincerely apologize if my friend potentially being in trouble offends you.
I have no doubt the pilot didn't intend to do anything illegal, but in a situation like this the vultures always start circling. I guarantee that some lawyers and TCCA inspectors saw the above quote and began poring over the records to find if anything was done illegally, whether intentional or not. It might seem innappropriate to consider such things right now, but lawyers don't wait for the grieving period to end to get to work.
I have no doubt the pilot didn't intend to do anything illegal, but in a situation like this the vultures always start circling. I guarantee that some lawyers and TCCA inspectors saw the above quote and began poring over the records to find if anything was done illegally, whether intentional or not. It might seem innappropriate to consider such things right now, but lawyers don't wait for the grieving period to end to get to work.
-
Rhys Perraton
- Rank 2
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 10:11 am
Re: Another plane crash near Brenda Mine west of Kelowna
" Who cares which one of the friends put the credit card down for the rental. For the record, at least one pilot on board was an experienced, professional, current aviator, and spent years flying commercially in this province and around the world. "
Sorry, but it's irrelevant who paid, if indeed someone did, and also the licence or experience of the pilot has no bearing on whether this was a flight for "hire or reward" on a private aircraft.
If it was it was an illegal flight and the legal and liability implications may be severe.
Flying for Money!
by the Advisory and Appeals Division, Policy and Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Transport Canada
As some of you may know, Canadian aviation law makes an important distinction between private and commercial aviation, the latter being subject to both elevated standards and increased regulatory scrutiny, resulting in an exceptionally high level of aviation safety.
To this end, a definition of “hire or reward” has been created in the legislative framework. That definition is set out in subsection 3(1) of the Aeronautics Act, as follows:
“hire or reward” means any payment, consideration, gratuity or benefit, directly or indirectly charged, demanded, received or collected by any person for the use of an aircraft;
Courts have consistently given a broad, expansive and liberal interpretation to the term “hire or reward”. The scenarios that follow illustrate this point.
In two older court cases, two operators of remote fishing or hunting camps had offered a fly-in service to guests at no extra charge. In other words, the rate charged for accommodations and guide services was the same whether the customers chose to use the fly-in service offered by the camp operators, or whether they decided to pay someone else to transport them to the camps. The hunting camp operators argued that, because they received no additional fee for the offered flights, there was no “hire or reward” situation. The courts in both cases rejected this argument and found that the free flights provided each operator a clear, albeit indirect, benefit. Therefore, the flights in question were “hire or reward” flights and the operators were found to have been operating a commercial air service without the appropriate licence.
In another, more recent, court case, a pilot was the director of Company A and Company B. Company A was the registered owner of the aircraft flown by the pilot. Company A rented the aircraft to Company B, and Company B was paid for bringing equipment, persons or other things to different sites. The Federal Court decided that, since Company A was the registered owner of the aircraft and had received an indirect benefit from the flights, it was required to have an air operator certificate (AOC) as set out in subsection 700.02(1) of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs).
There are situations where a person may operate for “hire or reward” and not require an AOC. One situation is covered by subsection 700.02(3) of the CARs, which allows farmers who own their own planes to use them to spray herbicides within a 25-mi. radius from their farm centre.
Another situation, covered by subsection 700.02(4) of the CARs, concerns sightseeing flights conducted by flight schools. This type of activity is permitted, without the requirement for an AOC, if the various conditions set out in the CARs are met: specifically, the pilot must hold a flight training unit (FTU) operator certificate and a flight instructor rating, the flights must be conducted in accordance with visual flight rules (VFR) in a single-engine aircraft with no more than nine passengers, and for the purpose of sightseeing.
Another situation where someone could conduct an operation for hire or reward without an AOC would be if the Minister issued an exemption. Pursuant to subsection 5.9(2) of the Aeronautics Act, the Minister can issue exemptions from the application of any regulation, should the Minister be of the opinion that such exemptions are in the public interest and not likely to adversely affect aviation safety or security. For example, situations involving charity flights, where pilots have been reimbursed only for fuel costs, have been issued exemptions in the past.
Another twist to the above concepts can be found if we look at section 401.28 of the CARs. This section deals with the reimbursement of costs incurred in respect of certain flights, by private pilots, in very specific circumstances.
Subsection 401.28(2) allows private pilots, who own their own aircraft, to receive reimbursements from passengers towards the operational costs of running the aircraft. Subsection 401.28(3) allows the private pilot to be reimbursed by his employer (who does not normally employ the person as a pilot). Subsection 401.28(4) allows private pilots to receive reimbursement when the flights are conducted for a “charitable, not-for-profit or public security organization”, on a volunteer basis. The three scenarios above are available only when certain specified criteria or conditions are met.
So, as we can see, the term “hire or reward” can be difficult to apply. Each situation must be looked at carefully in light of the case law and regulations that apply.
Sorry, but it's irrelevant who paid, if indeed someone did, and also the licence or experience of the pilot has no bearing on whether this was a flight for "hire or reward" on a private aircraft.
If it was it was an illegal flight and the legal and liability implications may be severe.
Flying for Money!
by the Advisory and Appeals Division, Policy and Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Transport Canada
As some of you may know, Canadian aviation law makes an important distinction between private and commercial aviation, the latter being subject to both elevated standards and increased regulatory scrutiny, resulting in an exceptionally high level of aviation safety.
To this end, a definition of “hire or reward” has been created in the legislative framework. That definition is set out in subsection 3(1) of the Aeronautics Act, as follows:
“hire or reward” means any payment, consideration, gratuity or benefit, directly or indirectly charged, demanded, received or collected by any person for the use of an aircraft;
Courts have consistently given a broad, expansive and liberal interpretation to the term “hire or reward”. The scenarios that follow illustrate this point.
In two older court cases, two operators of remote fishing or hunting camps had offered a fly-in service to guests at no extra charge. In other words, the rate charged for accommodations and guide services was the same whether the customers chose to use the fly-in service offered by the camp operators, or whether they decided to pay someone else to transport them to the camps. The hunting camp operators argued that, because they received no additional fee for the offered flights, there was no “hire or reward” situation. The courts in both cases rejected this argument and found that the free flights provided each operator a clear, albeit indirect, benefit. Therefore, the flights in question were “hire or reward” flights and the operators were found to have been operating a commercial air service without the appropriate licence.
In another, more recent, court case, a pilot was the director of Company A and Company B. Company A was the registered owner of the aircraft flown by the pilot. Company A rented the aircraft to Company B, and Company B was paid for bringing equipment, persons or other things to different sites. The Federal Court decided that, since Company A was the registered owner of the aircraft and had received an indirect benefit from the flights, it was required to have an air operator certificate (AOC) as set out in subsection 700.02(1) of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs).
There are situations where a person may operate for “hire or reward” and not require an AOC. One situation is covered by subsection 700.02(3) of the CARs, which allows farmers who own their own planes to use them to spray herbicides within a 25-mi. radius from their farm centre.
Another situation, covered by subsection 700.02(4) of the CARs, concerns sightseeing flights conducted by flight schools. This type of activity is permitted, without the requirement for an AOC, if the various conditions set out in the CARs are met: specifically, the pilot must hold a flight training unit (FTU) operator certificate and a flight instructor rating, the flights must be conducted in accordance with visual flight rules (VFR) in a single-engine aircraft with no more than nine passengers, and for the purpose of sightseeing.
Another situation where someone could conduct an operation for hire or reward without an AOC would be if the Minister issued an exemption. Pursuant to subsection 5.9(2) of the Aeronautics Act, the Minister can issue exemptions from the application of any regulation, should the Minister be of the opinion that such exemptions are in the public interest and not likely to adversely affect aviation safety or security. For example, situations involving charity flights, where pilots have been reimbursed only for fuel costs, have been issued exemptions in the past.
Another twist to the above concepts can be found if we look at section 401.28 of the CARs. This section deals with the reimbursement of costs incurred in respect of certain flights, by private pilots, in very specific circumstances.
Subsection 401.28(2) allows private pilots, who own their own aircraft, to receive reimbursements from passengers towards the operational costs of running the aircraft. Subsection 401.28(3) allows the private pilot to be reimbursed by his employer (who does not normally employ the person as a pilot). Subsection 401.28(4) allows private pilots to receive reimbursement when the flights are conducted for a “charitable, not-for-profit or public security organization”, on a volunteer basis. The three scenarios above are available only when certain specified criteria or conditions are met.
So, as we can see, the term “hire or reward” can be difficult to apply. Each situation must be looked at carefully in light of the case law and regulations that apply.
-
godsrcrazy
- Rank 8
- Posts: 847
- Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 4:12 pm
Re: Another plane crash near Brenda Mine west of Kelowna
I am not sure how some people on this site feel that i am questioning the ability of the pilot on this flight on my post. I have no idea who the pilot is and therefor i will not comment on their ability. All i posted was a comment made in the attached paper that wallypilot posted. The fact that a friend of one of the passengers told the paper that this flight was bought (paid for) has nothing to do with the ability of the pilot or the condition of the aircraft. I am only pointing out with this comment this investigation will take a whole new turn in direction and the owner of this aircraft will no doubt be under investigation.
As for the deceased i offer my condolences. It is sad to see any lose their life wether it is in the air or on the ground.
As for the deceased i offer my condolences. It is sad to see any lose their life wether it is in the air or on the ground.
Re: Another plane crash near Brenda Mine west of Kelowna
Here's the story.
Two people are dead, two people are badly injured.
There is zero probability that the TSB is going to find that this aircraft crashed because someone "paid for the flight". Whether or not that happened is totally irrelevant to why the aircraft crashed.
There is also zero probability that the scarce resources of Transport Canada's enforcement team are going to be used in an investigation based on a rumor on this website relaying a comment from a newspaper. There aren't going to be any charges.
Two people are dead, two people are badly injured.
There is zero probability that the TSB is going to find that this aircraft crashed because someone "paid for the flight". Whether or not that happened is totally irrelevant to why the aircraft crashed.
There is also zero probability that the scarce resources of Transport Canada's enforcement team are going to be used in an investigation based on a rumor on this website relaying a comment from a newspaper. There aren't going to be any charges.
Re: Another plane crash near Brenda Mine west of Kelowna
No it won't. No, he or she won't.godsrcrazy wrote:I am only pointing out with this comment this investigation will take a whole new turn in direction and the owner of this aircraft will no doubt be under investigation.
-
stallfortime
- Rank 1
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 7:41 am
Re: Another plane crash near Brenda Mine west of Kelowna
... i would like to see the t.s.b. attribute this tragedy to some sort of human error/errors. Not for assignment of blame, but to more easily enter prediction into future flying. It is hoped the survivors will shed some light on this so we can all benefit.
Airplanes, depending on their state of maintenance, are like tools or computers, doing only what one tells them to do. If the driver constantly updates situational data, the better to assume responsibility and control of whatever the elements present for fun and frolic.
i woudn't be sure that penticton has a special history, but high temps and fire haze make my antlers tingle...
Airplanes, depending on their state of maintenance, are like tools or computers, doing only what one tells them to do. If the driver constantly updates situational data, the better to assume responsibility and control of whatever the elements present for fun and frolic.
i woudn't be sure that penticton has a special history, but high temps and fire haze make my antlers tingle...
Re: Another plane crash near Brenda Mine west of Kelowna
Reading this makes me sick...
I know the history of the pilot...
He has a history of poor decision making skills... I will not go into further detail....
Long story short.. he tried to outclimb terrain in a twin commanche.. and people are dead because of it...
I have said this before and I will say it again, you can lie to everyone except yourself... If you need the skills you tell people you have.. you better be able to deliver them,, people can die if you cannot.
I know the history of the pilot...
He has a history of poor decision making skills... I will not go into further detail....
Long story short.. he tried to outclimb terrain in a twin commanche.. and people are dead because of it...
I have said this before and I will say it again, you can lie to everyone except yourself... If you need the skills you tell people you have.. you better be able to deliver them,, people can die if you cannot.
Re: Another plane crash near Brenda Mine west of Kelowna
I thought the person piloting the plane was a female?
Re: Another plane crash near Brenda Mine west of Kelowna
Strega, Your comment astounds me. What an incredible lack of respect for those friends and family involved in this ordeal, who Im certain have read this site and you nefarious comments. Not only am I certain that you are misinformed as to who was flying, but also that you are way out of line.
-
parallel60
- Rank 2
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:59 pm
Re: Another plane crash near Brenda Mine west of Kelowna
+1 Rowdy.
Strega, at least try and act Professional.
Strega, at least try and act Professional.
-
stallfortime
- Rank 1
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 7:41 am
Re: Another plane crash near Brenda Mine west of Kelowna
... let's just all hope it wasn't a repeat of the chap's poor judgement in his single comanche months ago. Airplanes will fly, if you let them...
p.s.: anyone here know the coordinates of impact? i saw a map on a news story, but have lost it.
p.s.: anyone here know the coordinates of impact? i saw a map on a news story, but have lost it.
Re: Another plane crash near Brenda Mine west of Kelowna
Sounds like you might need to engage brain. Why do you think TC cares about chisel charters in the first place? You think they're just trying to annoy people? If it was a chisel charter it is very relevant to the investigation and why the plane crashed. Again, engage brain if you can't figure it out...cncpc wrote:Here's the story.
Two people are dead, two people are badly injured.
There is zero probability that the TSB is going to find that this aircraft crashed because someone "paid for the flight". Whether or not that happened is totally irrelevant to why the aircraft crashed.
There is also zero probability that the scarce resources of Transport Canada's enforcement team are going to be used in an investigation based on a rumor on this website relaying a comment from a newspaper. There aren't going to be any charges.
Re: Another plane crash near Brenda Mine west of Kelowna
There's an interesting article in this month's COPA newsletter which discusses the beaver accident ("PILOT ERROR" I think is the title). The conclusion is that the beaver couldn't possibly have outclimbed the terrain on that day.cgartly wrote: I doubt either this or the previous Beaver incident were density altitude related, both have considerably more power than me in my 172.
I'm not sure why you had a different experience - I'm guessing either the beaver took a different route, or it has a shallower climb profile than your 172.
Re: Another plane crash near Brenda Mine west of Kelowna
Listen up, Sparky. Don't try and make your point by attributing stupid arguments to me. I never said they were trying to annoy people. My brain is fully engaged, as I expect are those of both TC and the TSB. This aircraft didn't crash because somebody paid for the flight. Whether or not it was a chisel charter has absolutely nothing to do with why the plane crashed. Even a partially engaged brain knows that, and also knows that TC doesn't start the major investigation you say is coming based on an uncorroborated, vague rumor in a newspaper.CpnCrunch wrote:Sounds like you might need to engage brain. Why do you think TC cares about chisel charters in the first place? You think they're just trying to annoy people? If it was a chisel charter it is very relevant to the investigation and why the plane crashed. Again, engage brain if you can't figure it out...cncpc wrote:Here's the story.
Two people are dead, two people are badly injured.
There is zero probability that the TSB is going to find that this aircraft crashed because someone "paid for the flight". Whether or not that happened is totally irrelevant to why the aircraft crashed.
There is also zero probability that the scarce resources of Transport Canada's enforcement team are going to be used in an investigation based on a rumor on this website relaying a comment from a newspaper. There aren't going to be any charges.
Before you go around running your gob and talking about other posters on here engaging their brains, have a look in the mirror.
-
Diadem
- Rank 8
- Posts: 911
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:16 pm
- Location: A sigma left of the top of the bell curve
Re: Another plane crash near Brenda Mine west of Kelowna
Maybe not, but would the ambulance-chasing lawyers who think they can make a buck on a lawsuit start said investigation? Such a comment is exactly the kind of thing that gets the vultures circling, and they'll be picking over every aspect of the flight to see if anything was done that could even possibly be considered illegal or negligent, even if it had nothing to do with the accident. See the lawsuits filed in the First Air 6560 crash, and the investigation isn't even over yet.cncpc wrote:Even a partially engaged brain knows that, and also knows that TC doesn't start the major investigation you say is coming based on an uncorroborated, vague rumor in a newspaper.
Re: Another plane crash near Brenda Mine west of Kelowna
You still don't get it. The same factors that cause someone to run a chisel charter would also cause someone to fly a perfectly good plane into the side of a mountain. Bad decision making and recklessness. If you don't recognise that, perhaps you shouldn't be flying yourself. I'm not saying that either of those things happened in this particular accident, but certainly bad decision making seems to be a factor in some of these accidents at Brenda Mines.cncpc wrote:Listen up, Sparky. Don't try and make your point by attributing stupid arguments to me. I never said they were trying to annoy people. My brain is fully engaged, as I expect are those of both TC and the TSB. This aircraft didn't crash because somebody paid for the flight. Whether or not it was a chisel charter has absolutely nothing to do with why the plane crashed. Even a partially engaged brain knows that, and also knows that TC doesn't start the major investigation you say is coming based on an uncorroborated, vague rumor in a newspaper.CpnCrunch wrote:Sounds like you might need to engage brain. Why do you think TC cares about chisel charters in the first place? You think they're just trying to annoy people? If it was a chisel charter it is very relevant to the investigation and why the plane crashed. Again, engage brain if you can't figure it out...cncpc wrote:Here's the story.
Two people are dead, two people are badly injured.
There is zero probability that the TSB is going to find that this aircraft crashed because someone "paid for the flight". Whether or not that happened is totally irrelevant to why the aircraft crashed.
There is also zero probability that the scarce resources of Transport Canada's enforcement team are going to be used in an investigation based on a rumor on this website relaying a comment from a newspaper. There aren't going to be any charges.
Before you go around running your gob and talking about other posters on here engaging their brains, have a look in the mirror.
-
stallfortime
- Rank 1
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 7:41 am
Re: Another plane crash near Brenda Mine west of Kelowna
... did the type have auto rich?
Re: Another plane crash near Brenda Mine west of Kelowna
I don't think the lawyers are going to have any difficulty gaining damages for their clients, Diadem. However, it is not correct to say "even if it had nothing to do with the accident". Damages by law must be connected to the cause of the accident.Diadem wrote:Maybe not, but would the ambulance-chasing lawyers who think they can make a buck on a lawsuit start said investigation? Such a comment is exactly the kind of thing that gets the vultures circling, and they'll be picking over every aspect of the flight to see if anything was done that could even possibly be considered illegal or negligent, even if it had nothing to do with the accident. See the lawsuits filed in the First Air 6560 crash, and the investigation isn't even over yet.cncpc wrote:Even a partially engaged brain knows that, and also knows that TC doesn't start the major investigation you say is coming based on an uncorroborated, vague rumor in a newspaper.
I'm not sure there are vultures circling in the First Air crash. It is worth noting that this was a legal, not chisel, charter, and the airplane still crashed.
-
iflyforpie
- Top Poster
- Posts: 8132
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
- Location: Winterfell...
Re: Another plane crash near Brenda Mine west of Kelowna
If it was found to be a 'chisel charter', it would be listed in the TSB report under 'findings as to risk', probably citing the lack of operational, training, and airworthiness standards.
Re: Another plane crash near Brenda Mine west of Kelowna
What operational, training, or airworthiness standards have been below standard in this event?iflyforpie wrote:If it was found to be a 'chisel charter', it would be listed in the TSB report under 'findings as to risk', probably citing the lack of operational, training, and airworthiness standards.
Has there been any release of the name of the pilot and other passenger and any update on their condition?
