2 planes collide in midair on Montreal's South Shore

[timel]

It is only a matter of time before it happens again out here in the Fraser Valley with all the off shore flying schools operating in our airspace and clowns not understanding anything more than "cleared to land "or "cleared for take-off". And now with the instructors at these schools teaching in their own language, there is even less Engrish being spoken.

But $100.00 gets them an Engrish proficiency pass...BULL..

I am guessing the miraculous survivor will be tested for his English understanding. TC could easily go into schools and do random verifications.

[DrSpaceman]

I don't think anyone who's ever flown around them during a busy day can honestly say they are really surprised... There's threads about this dating back 9 years.

viewtopic.php?t=41165

viewtopic.php?t=45712

Last one details 10 cadors in 1 month...

[Braun]

Everyone is assuming communication is the main issue without seeing the radar tapes. Chill out and wait.

[daedalusx]

Everyone is assuming communication is the main issue without seeing the radar tapes. Chill out and wait.

It's extremely obvious what happened here. Listen to the ATC tape and then go read all of Cargair cadors for 2016-17 and draw your own conclusions.

[AuxBatOn]

Really? The tapes show an innacurate representation of part of a side of a three-way story.

With it, we know what was said. What we don't know is what was heard and what was understood by any of the three people involved.

If you are willing to make a definitive conclusion on such a weak piece of evidence, well...

[Old Dog Flying]

Really! As a retired military and civilian controller who worked with off-shore students for much of my career, starting with French Air Force students in 1953 at YPG and ending with Chinese students in 2003, I can assure you that language is the major problem.

When you cannot respond to simple English instructions then you are an accident waiting to happen. And I've seen it more times than I care to remember! The audio tapes are a very important part of the scenario.c

[Braun]

Everyone is assuming communication is the main issue without seeing the radar tapes. Chill out and wait.

It's extremely obvious what happened here. Listen to the ATC tape and then go read all of Cargair cadors for 2016-17 and draw your own conclusions.

The only thing that is extremely obvious here is that you are basing your judgement on a communication reel and a preliminary CADORS. Let the investigation go and we'll see when the results comes out who is right or wrong. I mean what do I know...

[Braun]

Really? The tapes show an innacurate representation of part of a side of a three-way story.

With it, we know what was said. What we don't know is what was heard and what was understood by any of the three people involved.

If you are willing to make a definitive conclusion on such a weak piece of evidence, well...

100% agree.

[Braun]

Really! As a retired military and civilian controller who worked with off-shore students for much of my career, starting with French Air Force students in 1953 at YPG and ending with Chinese students in 2003, I can assure you that language is the major problem.

When you cannot respond to simple English instructions then you are an accident waiting to happen. And I've seen it more times than I care to remember! The audio tapes are a very important part of the scenario.c

Obviously they are very important! What does the radar playback say though?

[timel]

I fully agree that we should let the investigation follow its process when it comes to conclusions, but it is not a secret in the industry that some Chinese students have a serious problem with communication. Sometimes it feels like schools are doing damage control.

It is up to TC to do audits, and not let everyone become self-autonomous with ISO certification whatever, why this was an issue in 2003 and we are still complaining about language problems in 2017? It is like everyone is complaining on this issue all over the country and Transport Canada is digging their heads into the ground. If the accident is related to a language problem, I really hope heads are going to roll down very high up in Transport Canada management.

[AuxBatOn]

This is the airplane that landed on the roof being craned off.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.33 ... /image.jpg

Does that look like a prop that was turning when the airplane hit the ground? If not, when did the engine stop turning and why? There were reports of rough engine sounds before the collision. Would that be a plausible scenario?

But I guess we should just assume language was the issue. From tapes and some random dude talking out of his ass.

[GyvAir]

Obviously they are very important! What does the radar playback say though?

I would put money on the radar showing the non-responsive aircraft decending into the path of the other one. That much seems pretty obvious, based on the ATC audio.

There were reports of rough engine sounds before the collision.

The eye (ear?) witness reports of sputtering, coughing, rough, screaming, whining, struggling engine noise associated with such accidents are just an inevitable as these forum speculations.

Listening to the audio in general for that airport, I must say those controllers do have their hands full, with the traffic volume, the limited experience level of the majority of the pilots and the multiple language issues.

My condolences to all those affected.

[Braun]

Obviously they are very important! What does the radar playback say though?

I would put money on the radar showing the non-responsive aircraft decending into the path of the other one. That much seems pretty obvious, based on the ATC audio.

There were reports of rough engine sounds before the collision.

The eye (ear?) witness reports of sputtering, coughing, rough, screaming, whining, struggling engine noise associated with such accidents are just an inevitable as these forum speculations.

Listening to the audio in general for that airport, I must say those controllers do have their hands full, with the traffic volume, the limited experience level of the majority of the pilots and the multiple language issues.

My condolences to all those affected.

YOU would lose money.

[GyvAir]

YOU would lose money.

Quite possibly. It's not like I have the whole picture, by a long shot. Sounds like you may know a little more than some.

[cgzro]

There is no harm in assuming that language and looking outside skills played an important part in this accident and for everybody to up their game accordingly. It may be other factors played a role but it would be irrisponsible for pilots , instructors and ATC to not react in how they aporoach their jobs based on what were likely contributing factors.

[patter]

Condolences to the Flight School and families involved.

[Gravol]

Lets hope some good comes out of this.


On a side note, a new low for the CBC. Uploading an amateur video showing the deceased pilot in the wreckage. I'm delighted my tax payer dollars fund such incompetence.

[timel]

http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-n ... content=V1

[tps8903]

This is the airplane that landed on the roof being craned off.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.33 ... /image.jpg

Does that look like a prop that was turning when the airplane hit the ground? If not, when did the engine stop turning and why? There were reports of rough engine sounds before the collision. Would that be a plausible scenario?

But I guess we should just assume language was the issue. From tapes and some random dude talking out of his ass.

Without seeing how the plane was positioned in it's final resting place that conclusion cannot be drawn. If the prop was in a position that gave it clearance when it hit the ground (i.e. laying on it's back with a crushed stabilizer then the engine could have very well be turning. On the other hand it could also mean the engine was stopped if the prop was in a position to contact the ground. There is often multiple explanations for multiple pieces of evidence if you don't have the full context.

As far as the witnesses. You have to be very careful about what people say they saw and heard etc. You often need some sort of physical evidence to back up claims of sputter, noise, flame etc. Or two completely independent sources of the same information that you can confirm have not spoken in some way to taint their recollection. I'm not implying that people purposefully mislead the investigators (although that does happen sometimes) but often people attempt to fill in the blanks themselves when talking to investigators and insert information they believe to make sense from their understanding. Other times they may hear other people talking, or news articles before speaking with investigators and that damages their account as they attempt to reconcile information they witnessed with information they found out afterwards. Often it's not on purpose, but after a while its hard to remember what you actually saw, and what you have learnt second hand, after all if the information you learnt fits the narrative as you know it, you may adapt that information as true (Spoiler alert, often it is not).

All this to say, I agree with other posters. Let the investigation take its course, it's impossible to know all the links in this chain with out being involved in the investigation.

[tps8903]

I don't think anyone who's ever flown around them during a busy day can honestly say they are really surprised... There's threads about this dating back 9 years.

viewtopic.php?t=41165

viewtopic.php?t=45712

Last one details 10 cadors in 1 month...

How is it possible that this flight school is averaging 5-10 CADORS a month, on a year over year basis?...I ran the CADORS for "Cargair" and got 521 occurrences since 2010.

Is this a lot? or is it just me? Seems like there might be some oversight issues here that Transport could address.....