Beaver down off Saturna island (Updates)

[snoopy]

seniorpumpkin - Fair enough, but not all "middle class Gulf Islanders" are commuting. Some of them might perhaps be shopping, or visiting friends and family - frivolous activities really - so those passengers might need to be prepared to take a higher level of risk, according to that logic. And what about alternative modes of transportation (boat, swim, hydrofoil, build a bridge)? Or even their perceived need to live on an island and commute in the first place? Is that not in itself frivolous and deserving of a higher level of risk?

I bet if a pilot asked the average American hunter as they boarded the aircraft, if they were prepared to die, I suspect the pilot might suddenly find him/herself with very few passengers on board.

And if those hunters are not of the risk-taking American type, and are in fact hunting to survive - say, they're from a remote location where hunting is either forbidden or perhaps resources are scarce in their community - does this not become more of a necessity rather than a frivolous pursuit, and thereby deserving of the same level of safety as the "middle class"?

And what about the residents of Weagamow Lake, Big Trout Lake and Summer Beaver to name a few... are they entitled to more or less favorable risk levels using this sort of logic? And does this depend on whether they are "commuting", hunting or shopping?

Is it really the "class" or financial well being of the customer that dictated the original statement, or was it perhaps the fact that the Gulf Islands are located in southern geography, as opposed to the out-of-sight-out-of-mind geography in the north?

If we regress to this level of thinking, we might have to consider lowering the standards for maintenance, piloting, flight following and a myriad of other operational factors for various levels of society - not just the standards for door-opening devices.

So if we go back to having the same rules for everyone, and the same respect for human life - regardless of location, "class", purpose of travel, etc., does that not seem more logical and less complicated? Do we really need to make a distinction as to which lives are more valuable?

Personally, I don't care WHO my passengers are, WHERE they're traveling to and from, or WHAT their reasons for traveling are, everyone and everything on board my aircraft will get the same level of care, consideration, and safekeeping - and the same goes for my aircraft and anyone/anything in close proximity to it.

Just my two cents...

Kirsten B.

[HS-748 2A]

Snoopy - you're shouting from a bit of a pedestal, don't you think?

Why did you have people riding around in your 65 year old Beech 18 when you could have likely improved safety by a factor of 30 by simply buying a Twin Otter?

Don't get me wrong, I find the risk of riding around in your Beech 18 completely acceptable, (You've certainly demonstrated you could handle an engine failure), but if there is no other objective than safety - why would you operate less than the safest possible piece of equipment???

Also, in further extrapolation from your statements above, why aren't 985 powered Beech 18s still viable to serve the commuter market on the West Coast?

We all know the answer. It boils down to what risk people and different demographics of people are willing to accept or pay to improve.

[snoopy]

HS-748 2A, I certainly don't think I'm shouting - exaggerating maybe, but only to prove a point. And BTW the airplane was only 57 years old...

My point is, "middle class Gulf Islanders" are no more or less deserving of safety than anyone else. I didn't specify what was safe or not safe - only that all lives are equally important.

Since you brought it up, I am of the belief that with proper maintenance, and regular inspections, the age of a non-pressurized aircraft is immaterial - in fact most DHC-6 in service today are not that young anymore. If you are referring to turbine engines, well, I agree they can be more reliable, but they too do fail, and their aircraft crash and kill people. I would say the system is more at fault than the equipment.

Example: We could try and instigate safety by requiring all aircraft be new - but if the pilot overloads the machine, pushes the weather and/or the operator fails to properly maintain the aircraft, the fact that the aircraft was new, or equipped with turbine engines, becomes a moot point.

Anyway, something about beating a dead horse comes to mind... I don't expect everyone to agree with what I have to say, but I do appreciate you listening. And thank you for the compliment.

Cheers,
Kirsten B.

[RatherBeFlying]

My point is, "middle class Gulf Islanders" are no more or less deserving of safety than anyone else. I didn't specify what was safe or not safe - only that all lives are equally important.

Frankly I'm in full agreement with Snoopy on this matter; however certain demographics have more political clout than others.

Whatever is deserved by the politically well connected is equally deserved by others, but it rarely works out that way.

[xsbank]

And that could be the elephant in the room that nobody is talking about - why some accidents are investigated and others are ignored? Or maybe they think they can just throw this one in as a quickie because there are survivors to talk to?

I sure hope not.

[seniorpumpkin]

Ok Snoopy, with all due respect, things are getting a little out of context here...
it was 'ratherbeflying' who first mentioned the different demographics in the southern gulf islands, not me.

Yes, it seems acceptable that moose hunters and trappers take on some extra risk, but I don't think middle class Gulf Islanders using a scheduled air service will swallow that one.

I picked up on that sub thread with my post, but you may have missed a couple things I said:

I'm not saying that we should have two sets of safety standards

yes they are without a doubt entitled to the same safety standards.

Let me re-phrase what I'm thinking about.
To make the changes neccessary to make beavers safer, it will require money, just the same as making any airplane or any air service safer. My experiences in northern communities and the lower mainland, have shown me that, in the north, low cost often plays a bigger role in airline selection than it does in the gulf islands. I think that people who fly in and out of these islands would be the first to pay a little extra for a better door latch. Perhaps it's because in the gulf islands it's the individuals who are buying the tickets, whereas in the north it's the company people work for, the band under which they live, or it's a contract plane hired out by the fishing lodge.
My point isn't that important, I'm simply talking about the differences between the two demographics. This, I think, partially explains why this beaver crash is getting more attention than any other beaver crash. Of course 'ratherbeflying' also has it right here:

however certain demographics have more political clout than others.

Whatever is deserved by the politically well connected is equally deserved by others, but it rarely works out that way.

PS: I think we're about to see a ressurection of beech 18's here on the coast, wait for it....

[Finn47]

Another new article on floatplane safety worth reading here:

http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews ... 5a8019517a

[CoastFloater]

PS: I think we're about to see a ressurection of beech 18's here on the coast, wait for it....

Would be nice to see!

There seems to be a lot of speculation made about this accident. Truly a tragic event...but as time goes on and we are learning from all the mistakes of previous accidents, and we seem to be getting much better at operating seaplanes. The frequency of accidents is definitly decreasing over time. In any event, fly safe everyone and be diligent about making good decisions especially in these winter months.

[EricCAX6]

Another new article on floatplane safety worth reading here:

http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews ... 5a8019517a

I don’t think any of the recommendations on life jackets would do to well. Like it says, inflated life jackets would make it almost impossible to exit, passengers already having them on, I think, would increase the rate of them being inflated inside, that could also harm other passengers chances of making it out as well. I think the only way is still grabbing one as you exit.

The only idea I like so far, whether or not it’s possible is that of xsbank about the inflatable bags attached to the airframe itself.

Also a while back, someone said why not mark the door handles with arrows showing which way to turn the knobs, as well as making them red. I’m a dock guy here on the coast, and I don’t think I can recall any beaver I’ve ever seen that doesn’t already have that.

Just putting that out there.

[Hot Fuel]

CoastFloater said

Truly a tragic event...but as time goes on and we are learning from all the mistakes of previous accidents, and we seem to be getting much better at operating seaplanes. The frequency of accidents is definitly decreasing over time.

Don’t take this personally but that is the classic fly, crash, fix, fly methodology that has governed our industry for years and the driving force behind the shift to a safety management system. We need to identify and correct the hazards before they become accidents. In other words…fly, identify, fix, and fly.

[Widow]

And that could be the elephant in the room that nobody is talking about - why some accidents are investigated and others are ignored?

I suggest that another reason, both for differences in accident investigation and action by TC on recommendations, includes the demographic of workers vs. non-workers. In other words, those who can sue and those who cannot. Public/media attention is a factor too.

I don’t think any of the recommendations on life jackets would do to well. Like it says, inflated life jackets would make it almost impossible to exit, passengers already having them on, I think, would increase the rate of them being inflated inside, that could also harm other passengers chances of making it out as well.

I know many people debate this, but please reference the "Floatplane Safety Review" which I received through ATIP, and that is referenced in the article. I suggest that "PFD's are not considered practicle" does not agree with their own risk assessment or guidance material. See the bottom of page 19 of the PDF in the link above which indicates "risk of live preserves inflating while still in aircraft" has "minimal risk" which can be "managed by guidance". Two pages later, in "Step 5: Take Action" it indicates that TP12668 (seaplane instructors guide) should provide "enhanced guidance", including "wearing of life vests", and notes that the guidance was completed, accepted and is available. See page 17, "Advice to instructors" which says, "encourage student to wear inflatable safety vest".

In other words, while TC is not requiring PFDs be worn, they are recommending they be worn. Which is also why you find in TP12365 - Seaplane Pax Guide - "Check with your pilot to see if the life preserver is to be worn in-flight. If so, wear it, but NEVER INFLATE IT WHILE IN THE AIRCRAFT."

The risk of not being able to grab and don your PFD is greater than the risk of premature inflation - most floatplane acccidents happen very quickly - during takeoff or landing phase.

The only idea I like so far, whether or not it’s possible is that of xsbank about the inflatable bags attached to the airframe itself.

Like the issue of PFD's, this was something the RJ Waldron's investigator discussed with the TSB and in his Recommendations to the Coroner when investigating the crash of AQW - which also sank very quickly.

Defining the Safety Deficiency

This accident has highlighted the need for improvements in float requirements. In this case, had the aircraft remained floating, there is a very good chance that most if not all the occupants would have survived with no major injuries. Instead there were five fatalities.

It helps to define the problem and then explore options to address the defined problem. In this case, we want to reduce the probability of the aircraft and/or floats sinking so that they can be used for emergency flotation. There may be different ways to achieve the desired goal, but in general, requiring an engineering change that would result in sufficient positive buoyancy to keep the wreckage at the surface and provide a “liferaft” for survivors is the objective. Regardless if the compartments are flooded due to impact damage, poor condition and maintenance, or any other reason, positive flotation will provide the needed remedy.

Since achieving about 35% total buoyancy would be enough to keep the submerged aircraft at the surface and a place for survivors to hang on, all the float compartments would not have to achieve complete positive displacement. Sealed foam blocks could be installed through the hatches without filling all voids. The blocks could be removed for inspection or repair of the floats and could be periodically weighed to ensure that they do not increase in density. An alternate method of achieving the same objective would be air bladders.

[beaverbob]

[quote]The only idea I like so far, whether or not it’s possible is that of xsbank about the inflatable bags attached to the airframe itself./quote]


Here is what Xbank is talking about:

viewtopic.php?f=54&t=60714

[North Shore]

Great idea - I wonder what the weight penalty would be on that?

[Castorero]

Some years ago I had the unfortunate experience of being first on site of a Beaver crash likely resulting from a turn at low speed and altitude.
The aircraft, minus the wings nearby, ended up on its back with the fuselage and cabin nearly intact.
The airplane hit nose first pushing the engine into the firewall.

The lone survivor had been sitting at the very back.

Everything had moved forward, dislodging the pilot and copilot seats as well as the middle bench.

This was most striking, all the seats seemed to have just popped out of their attach points, leaving the floor intact.
All that I could think of was that if the seats and belts had remained in place, those people would still be alive.

It was only later that I learned of the flimsy attach points of the seats into the floor, seats that can be popped free with one swift kick.

This design flaw, certainly on the civilian Beaver, is something that is easily remedied by modifying the floor in more ways than one.

The best mod that I have seen is the installation of cargo tracks bolted down internally to the bulkheads between the fuel tanks.

The middle seats attach to the tracks, the seat belts attach to the floor and the same bulkheads, independent of the seats, and the two front seats are restrained from moving forward by cables running from the cargo track to the back of the seat attach points at floor level.

The track attachment is rated at 9 G.s deceleration.

Some will say that this is way overkill, but...

The other glaring deficiency in the Beaver cabin, as has been talked about already, are the HIDDEN door handles.
Don,t get me wrong, those handles are beautiful, and well designed, and they look really nice.
The problem is that they are nowhere to be found if you are looking for them with your eyes closed, feeling around the cabin, JUST SITTING AT THE DOCK.

I tried this with two intelligent 8 and 10 year olds in the cabin, in a trial of egress preparedness, and they could not find the handles with their eyes closed after numerous attempts. Imagine how difficult that task is in adverse conditions, under water etc.

The same type of outside door handle, welded onto the center of the recessed inside handles in such a way that it does not interfere with the door opening or closing, without modifying anything else, solves this handle disappearing act.

The rear door handles open in any direction, and they open easily in a hurried panic.

The front door handle opens only in one direction, but the point is that both handles can be easily bumped into and opened by searching the cabin walls.

Were I sitting at TC, this would have been a mandatory mod years ago, or at least something that addressed these two issues, would have been.

Mind you, the thought of me as a mandarin...

The discussion in this thread is of a high caliber, supporting the belief that us ordinary folk, together, have all that it takes to analyze and solve most of our problems.

I too, am saddened by this latest accident and tragic loss of life, and offer my heartfelt condolences to the families, to Seair and to all of you, our flying community and a speedy recovery to the pilot of the Beaver.

We are all affected by these tragedies.

[flyinthebug]

Castorero..Good post and welcome:)

I survived a DHC-2 crash last spring. I have a similiar story in regards to my seat. It too broke free at some point of impact and tossed me around the cockpit. That may have saved my life, who knows. What concerns me is it seems this is more the "norm" then not when it comes to seats breaking free on impact? I have 22 broken bones and a smashed left arm to remind me that my seat broke free in a DHC2 crash. If it hadnt, it may not have hurt quite as bad? Id certainly welcome discussing it further in pm.

Does anyone know if the seats were found in place or dislodged in this accident?

I dont care to speculate, but I dont disagree with many of the thoughts above.

My best regards to the survivors and their families as well as those who were lost.

Fly safe all.

[stew]

The same type of outside door handle, welded onto the center of the recessed inside handles in such a way that it does not interfere with the door opening or closing, without modifying anything else, solves this handle disappearing act.

The rear door handles open in any direction, and they open easily in a hurried panic.

The front door handle opens only in one direction, but the point is that both handles can be easily bumped into and opened by searching the cabin walls.

Were I sitting at TC, this would have been a mandatory mod years ago, or at least something that addressed these two issues, would have been.

It has been approved and has been on some Beavers now for a few years.

Does anyone know if the seats were found in place or dislodged in this accident?

He hit quite hard, about 1200 FPM decent. The seats were pushed through the floor boards and through the top of the fuel tanks. The pilots door was open and the passenger door behind the pilot was also open. The woman that survived was sitting behind the pilot, the other doors were closed. It was not a matter of not being able to open the doors because they could not find the door handles. The doors were jammed shut, they could not open them with a crow bar.

The pilot attempted to take off with a tail wind, he then turned around and took off into wind, into the bay and descending air.

[North Shore]

He hit quite hard, about 1200 FPM decent. The seats were pushed through the floor boards and through the top of the fuel tanks. The pilots door was open and the passenger door behind the pilot was also open. The woman that survived was sitting behind the pilot, the other doors were closed. It was not a matter of not being able to open the doors because they could not find the door handles. The doors were jammed shut, they could not open them with a crow bar.

The pilot attempted to take off with a tail wind, he then turned around and took off into wind, into the bay and descending air.

Source? Has the pilot been able to speak with the TSB guy yet?

[wabano]

all the seats seemed to have just popped out of their attach points,

The De Havilland proprietary tie-downs and attach points...
like their fuel tanks belly location...


Better laff than cry!

[HS-748 2A]

Wabano - you must be drunk.

[pilotidentity]

Sounds like Stew is in the know.

You try it downwind because who wants to take off into towards terrain and have to deal with a steep turn and the poor climb performance of a Beaver in down going and gusty wind.

With a full load the Beaver might not get airborne going downwind before you are out into the open swells. If that happens then you have three options. One, take off into the wind and make a hair raising downwind turn inside the bay or Two, head back to the dock and lighten the load so you can go downwind or Three, just quit and say it can't be done.

On the coast the scheduled flights in the winter are continued very late into the day, often setting up a rushed scenario for the pilot. A delay in loading the plane can mean that an immediate downwind takeoff is required if a very dark landing is to be avoided. One or two aborted takeoffs or a long taxi and now things are getting really tight.

If you fly floats on the coast you have most likely found yourself in this situation and have had a scare or two from it.

If you take a look at Seair's website you will see that the scheduled flight for Saturna LEAVES VANCOUVER at 330 pm. Sunset tonight is 416 pm. Departure time FROM SATURNA back to Vancouver is 400pm. If you start taxiing around you are burning up a lot of precious time.

When the sun goes down on the coast it gets dark mighty quick, don't count on the extra half an hour.

Its not just Seair that does this. The customers want to leave as late as possible so to stay competitive its has become industry standard. The pilots have to "deal with it".

[Cat Driver]

Deleted.

[flyinthebug]

Deleted.

Why the teaser Cat? We`d sure like to have your input on this topic and many others!! You are missed on this board ol friend.

[Cat Driver]

It was a finger in the wrong place problem flyinthebug.

I was sending a PM to the last poster and accidently / stupidly hit the wrong icon and it ended up as a post.

I am trying to stay out of these discussions because I got time expired trying to give advice.

And if I were to express my feelings on these sad accidents and try and suggest how to help prevent more it would only piss off a lot of people and nothing would change anyhow.

As one of the posters here told me in a PM my time as a pilot is long gone and I should leave it up to the younger generation now because they are better educated and the future belongs to them........

Yeh.........

[godsrcrazy]

I am trying to stay out of these discussions because I got time expired trying to give advice.

And if I were to express my feelings on these sad accidents and try and suggest how to help prevent more it would only piss off a lot of people and nothing would change anyhow.

As one of the posters here told me in a PM my time as a pilot is long gone and I should leave it up to the younger generation now because they are better educated and the future belongs to them........

Yeh.........

Cat this may be the view of some. I can promise you it is not shared by all. It is the past that makes the future move ahead. I must say the continual Transport bashing got a little hard to take some times as did widows transport and operator bashing. How ever with the years of experience you have it truly is sad not to have it shared.

[flyinthebug]

It was a finger in the wrong place problem flyinthebug.

I was sending a PM to the last poster and accidently / stupidly hit the wrong icon and it ended up as a post.

I am trying to stay out of these discussions because I got time expired trying to give advice.

And if I were to express my feelings on these sad accidents and try and suggest how to help prevent more it would only piss off a lot of people and nothing would change anyhow.

As one of the posters here told me in a PM my time as a pilot is long gone and I should leave it up to the younger generation now because they are better educated and the future belongs to them........

Yeh.........

PM Cat. Many would disagree with the person that sent you that PM.

I dont want to start anything on this thread out of respect, but I certainly hope you reconsider your decision to quit offering your advice.. on topics as important as this one, a few grey hairs can shed some light on an accident like this one.

Fly safe all.