Plane missing in Antarctica

[pelmet]

History of the flight

The purpose of the flight was to reposition the aircraft and crew to support an Italian research team located at Terra Nova Bay, Antarctica. The flight was conducted under visual flight rules Footnote 1
Footnote 1 states.
"Kenn Borek Air Ltd. flight operations in the Antarctic are conducted under Canadian Aviation Regulation visual flight rules."


I find it hard to believe that they were VFR on this flight and flew into the side of that mountain.

Of course we won't be able to find out for sure but it is possible for one to be legally VFR and not see a mountain due to whiteout conditions which could be quite possible in this location(Or under other circumstances, one could have no real terrain avoidance capability when VFR at night depending on the level of darkness). Perhaps being in IMC can be better in certain cases as compared to marginal conditions as you are well aware that you can't see anything and will fly accordingly.

Of course the reality is that rules do get broken on these types of operations more frequently than in the airline world. You really are on your own out there in remote areas like this and it can be very unforgiving of mistakes.

[Illya Kuryakin]

History of the flight

The purpose of the flight was to reposition the aircraft and crew to support an Italian research team located at Terra Nova Bay, Antarctica. The flight was conducted under visual flight rules Footnote 1
Footnote 1 states.
"Kenn Borek Air Ltd. flight operations in the Antarctic are conducted under Canadian Aviation Regulation visual flight rules."


I find it hard to believe that they were VFR on this flight and flew into the side of that mountain.

Of course we won't be able to find out for sure but it is possible for one to be legally VFR and not see a mountain due to whiteout conditions which could be quite possible in this location(Or under other circumstances, one could have no real terrain avoidance capability when VFR at night depending on the level of darkness). Perhaps being in IMC can be better in certain cases as compared to marginal conditions as you are well aware that you can't see anything and will fly accordingly.

Of course the reality is that rules do get broken on these types of operations more frequently than in the airline world. You really are on your own out there in remote areas like this and it can be very unforgiving of mistakes.

VFR, IFR, IMC, VMC........if the airplane is flown lower than the terrain, the result will be the same. Every time. Don't mean to . sticks at you here Pelmet, there's just no way around this.
Illya

[CpnCrunch]

According to the report, it's likely they were underneath the cloud layer the whole time, so whiteout seems the most likely.

The thing I don't understand is how they could have ploughed into the mountain when they had a garmin 430 with worldwide terrain database, which shows a little map showing you exactly where the mountains are:

https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-the- ... ery-dialog

[Illya Kuryakin]

According to the report, it's likely they were underneath the cloud layer the whole time, so whiteout seems the most likely.


https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-the- ... ery-dialog

How would the report know they were "underneath the cloud layer" the whole time??
Illya

[CpnCrunch]

According to the report, it's likely they were underneath the cloud layer the whole time, so whiteout seems the most likely.


https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-the- ... ery-dialog

How would the report know they were "underneath the cloud layer" the whole time??
Illya

The climate model estimated the cloud base, which was above their altitude. However to be honest I don't think it matters much. What's the difference between being in cloud and in whiteout? Either way you need to know precisely where you are.

[Illya Kuryakin]

According to the report, it's likely they were underneath the cloud layer the whole time, so whiteout seems the most likely.


https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-the- ... ery-dialog

How would the report know they were "underneath the cloud layer" the whole time??
Illya

The climate model estimated the cloud base, which was above their altitude. However to be honest I don't think it matters much. What's the difference between being in cloud and in whiteout? Either way you need to know precisely where you are.

Failing that, be well above all local and neighbouring terrain.
Illya

[CpnCrunch]

Failing that, be well above all local and neighbouring terrain.
Illya

Perhaps that is not practical, given that the terrain goes up to 14700ft? I don't have a problem flying at night around terrain as long as I know precisely where I am and where the terrain is. In fact at my airport you don't really have much choice in the matter, but they helpfully put lots of beacons around to let you know where you should be flying. The problem here is that they didn't seem to know exactly where they were...similar to the First Air crash (which was IFR).

Also, the report didn't really seem to find any possible reasons why they didn't know where they were. I got the feeling reading it "we waited two years for this?!". They mentioned that Borek now gets their pilots to check the GPS coords carefully, but there is no mention of that in the report itself. I get the feeling that they deliberately left a lot of stuff out. Really, apart from the cloud cover there isn't anything in the report that we didn't know two years ago.

[J31]

Perhaps that is not practical, given that the terrain goes up to 14700ft? I don't have a problem flying at night around terrain as long as I know precisely where I am and where the terrain is. In fact at my airport you don't really have much choice in the matter, but they helpfully put lots of beacons around to let you know where you should be flying. The problem here is that they didn't seem to know exactly where they were...similar to the First Air crash (which was IFR).

Also, the report didn't really seem to find any possible reasons why they didn't know where they were. I got the feeling reading it "we waited two years for this?!". They mentioned that Borek now gets their pilots to check the GPS coords carefully, but there is no mention of that in the report itself. I get the feeling that they deliberately left a lot of stuff out. Really, apart from the cloud cover there isn't anything in the report that we didn't know two years ago.

The TSB has data from the recovered SkyTrac which they were able to determine the track and turn towards Tarra Nova Bay. The CVR was not working and they do not have any data from the GPS units as they are still on the mountain. So not having any evidence from CVR or GPS way points as to why they made the turn at that altitude there is no way of finding a cause. We can infer the crew made an error with the GPS coordinates or mistakenly flew too low for the track. But the TSB can only judge the facts, which are lacking.

[jschnurr]

Having never been down there, I was wondering some things.
Is there any agency in Antarctica which provides ATC services? If the crew were to have filed IFR, would it have made any difference at the end of the day? (ie is there even any radar coverage?)
As the Borek plane was flying under "Canadian Aviation Regulation visual flight rules", does each aircraft fly according to their registered country's rules?

[fish4life]

What would the service ceiling be on the 300 when she is heavy like they were at 14 500?

[Chuck Finley]

I may be wrong but if you are in a whiteout or if it's so dark out that you can't navigate visually then you are not VFR anymore.... To be VFR you need to be able to navigate by looking outside the window...

[stallie]

Failing that, be well above all local and neighbouring terrain.
Ilya

Perhaps that is not practical, given that the terrain goes up to 14700ft?
Cptn crunch

So you stay in bed and try again tomorrow. Or was that not culturally acceptable?

I am very, very surprised to read that KB ops are VFR in the Antarctic.

[pelmet]

VFR, IFR, IMC, VMC........if the airplane is flown lower than the terrain, the result will be the same. Every time. Don't mean to . sticks at you here Pelmet, there's just no way around this.
Illya

What would the service ceiling be on the 300 when she is heavy like they were at 14 500?

Exactly. It is nice to say fly higher than the terrain but is that really possible. Having wheelskis doesn't help or do they have just regular skis. And skimming the tops is not a good plan with mountain wave considerations. So then what? Fly around it. But, How accurate are the topographical charts down there. Are the VNC charts like we used to use in the artic which I found to be very, very accurate and useful for creating coordinates of where to go.

If you have a weather radar, that can help to as a backup. Anybody know if there was one on board?
Also, can you get your oxygen tanks filled down there? I would be surprised if you could. Maybe they had none left creating another consideration for the flight.

[Brantford Beech Boy]

Is there any agency in Antarctica which provides ATC services?

No.

If the crew were to have filed IFR, would it have made any difference at the end of the day?

Maybe, Maybe not

(ie is there even any radar coverage?)

No.

As the Borek plane was flying under "Canadian Aviation Regulation visual flight rules", does each aircraft fly according to their registered country's rules?

Yes, however when flying a foreign registered aircraft abroad you must adhere to the regulations of the flag on tail unless there is a more restrictive rule of the country you are flying in...as there is no aviation regulator for Antarctica, KBA must adhere to CARS.

I am very, very surprised to read that KB ops are VFR in the Antarctic.

Well, as there are no controlling agencies, airports or instrument approaches, all approaches and landings must be made in VMC.
(unless some of the skiways have grown GPS approaches since I was last there many moons ago)


BBB

[Rowdy]

Someone made a comment about service ceiling at ferry weight. While I am no expert on the matter, I have ferried a handful of twin otters and from my experience 14,5 is fairly moderate for ferrying. Usually we were up at around 17,500lbs as per the permit. In which case, with supplemental oxygen, the twin (with -27's) will climb reasonably. 5-800ft/min depending on conditions. IIRC we were 18,000ft in hot and humid air at ferry weight with a fairly tired set of -27's. It wasn't exemplary above 14.. but it was still climbing. With the -34's you'd be doing better.

With KBC on spring boards and with -34's at those temps, I'm fairly certain similar performance would be achievable. Why they elected to not continue the climb above the tallest peaks will remain a mystery if they indeed worried about encounters with IMC conditions.

Essentially the report is inconclusive.

[pelmet]

Why they elected to not continue the climb above the tallest peaks will remain a mystery if they indeed worried about encounters with IMC conditions.

Essentially the report is inconclusive.

Could it be that they were at a time of year where any oxygen would have been used on previous flights?

Did they have a weather radar unit installed?

Sometimes I find that in the accident reports, in which an investigating agency will be very careful not to come to any conclusion due to lack of hard evidence, I find that you have to read between the lines to see what they are hinting at. They do mention in the report an early turn and a change in entering coordinates procedures implemented after the accident. But obviously go no further than that. The rest is left up to the reader to try to come up with possible scenarios.

[Illya Kuryakin]

I wouldn't let the lack of 02 force me to fly below terrain clearance. Neither would you. But, you are correct, they have nothing to go on other than pure conjecture and speculation.
Illya

[fish4life]

Ya that's all I was curious about is why it is even a procedure unless it is sky clear to fly below the peaks