Globe&Mail: Lives Could Have Already Been Saved

[mulligan]

Does Mr. Danforth have a website I wonder? If I read correctly he is leading a group that will be taking its concerns to Ottawa and I'd like to wish him well. I started in the bush in 1976 and am well aware of the questionable practices of that era. I'm with a major now and had assumed that things had been cleaned up to some extent at least. I'm not so sure anymore and the carnage of the last few months makes me wonder if anything has changed. I can't help but think that this SMS gimmickry is a giant step in the wrong direction.

[Widow]

http://urcombot.googlepages.com/home

[Keepitsafe]

Pasco never pushed its pilots to fly in bad weather from what I've seen and and I can't imagine that has changed. You go to work and when you said no that was that.

That being said however when you are in Bella Bella as an example with a couple of Shorts worth of sports fishermen from Vancouver to be flown out by the Gooses and Beavers (normally the floatplanes depart just minutes apart in a group of three or more to the same destination) and this is the second day they have been weathered out the pressure to go is felt by the pilots as you want to complete your job of getting these people to where they are going and the flying you didn't do yesterday is added to flying you are supposed to do today.

You also know it is costing the company a lot of money to fly back and forth from Vancouver in the Shorts or Saab with the less than happy fisherman.

You are also getting paid by the mile however at Pasco you still got paid the mileage for the whole trip if you turned around and came back and even then I don't think that has much bearing on whether a pilot decides to go or not.

Some pilots take the personal pressure to fly better than others and I've seen a few go when all others said no. When that pilot makes it in and out now you start to question yourself whether you made the right decision not to go. I have then gone in this situation at several different companies (it happens at them all from what I've seen and heard) and regretted it - I have also gone and found the weather to be OK as well. You just never really know till you are out there in it if there is no weather stations along the route. The important thing is to have a plan B and always be able to turn around as soon as the weather falls below VFR even if your buddies keep on going or just don't go when you don't personally think you'd be safe. And don't depart in below VFR conditions. Sounds simple but its not when you feel your job, reputation or your date later that night is on the line.

VFR weather as far as I understand it is 2 miles visibility below 1000 feet agl and 300 feet from any obstacle - I take that as a 300 foot ceiling, please correct me if I am wrong.

It is illegal to start on a flight if the weather is below and forecast to be below that as per most operations manuals. Special VFR is approved in most ops manuals for ops in a control Zone when the weather is below 1000 foot ceiling and less than 3 miles - approval given by ATC down to 1 mile visibility while in the zone only. As soon as you leave the control zone you are flying illegal if the weather is less than 2 miles visibility flying below 1000 feet, something that is conveniently forgotten by a few eager to go pilots all winter on the West Coast. Some have the 1 mile limit with the extra training - a bs loophole really.

This crash has effected me greatly, the pilot was one everyone knew as a real gentleman. I feel that the weather that day was a factor, and like some of the posters above said accidents do happen in this challenging environment - I just hope that all VFR pilots on the coast will now be quicker to say NO I WONT GO UNTIL IT IS LEGAL VFR as per the company operations manual.

My beef with Transport Canada is that they sit up in their offices on top of the fog and watch floatplanes break the CARs by flying on top all winter - illegal even if it is in your ops manual because you CANNOT land in VFR conditions and fog is in the forecast. I've heard pilots talk of landing on instruments through the fog - good luck when your engine driven vacuum pump is no longer available so you are on partial panel, you aren't instrument rated or haven't flown IFR for a long time, you are suddenly thrown from a visual to an instrument situation with little warning and you can't see the water to flare as you fall like a rock with the extra drag of the floats. Some guys actually think they can pull this off. Or they think the chances are slim because they are behind a turbine. The pressure to fly is huge because its almost garunteed there will be a pilot on line that day that is willing to do it - every winter. Correct me if I am wrong on this. Talk about playing God with your unsuspecting passengers lives. My wish is the media gets a hold of this little bid of info THAT FLYING OVER THE FOG is not legal or safe so that passengers can be educated and report these unsafe practices.

On last thing that no one has mentioned is why didn't this aircraft have a SPOT onboard - a little unit that sends the GPS position to a Satellite so the position of the aircraft can be tracked so when it crashes you can narrow down the search. They are super cheap (I think 200 bucks a year) and every operator in Canada should be required to have one. The first Goose crash took awhile to find and this little unit would have saved a lot of time. Its not like an ELT that can be destroyed and not work - it gives the position every so many minutes so if it is destroyed at least it gave a position a few minutes ago.

Below is the weather along the route the day of the most recent Goose crash. Coastal pilots know the airports are often worse than over the water. Sometimes they are better. Again you don't know till you are out there or someone comes back with a pilot report. If you are the first to go along a certain route you are on your own. A phone call to other pilots along the route however - say up to Sechelt, just a few miles from the crash, the pilots would have said its crappy - they didn't turn a prop all day as far as I've heard.

According to the CADORs the flight departed at 1812 UTC. Not sure how a Special VFR was even given for the departure in less than a mile. Perhaps someone can answer that for me.

Vancouver

SP 17/11/2008 18:27->
SPECI CYVR 171827Z 00000KT 5/8SM BR SCT120 BKN220 08/ RMK
AC3CI1=
SA 17/11/2008 18:00->
METAR CYVR 171800Z 00000KT 1/2SM FG SCT120 BKN220 08/08 A3004
RMK AC3CI2 SLP174=
SP 17/11/2008 17:33->
SPECI CYVR 171733Z 09004KT 1/2SM FG SCT120 BKN220 08/ RMK
AC3CI2=


FT 17/11/2008 17:06->
TAF AMD CYVR 171706Z 1717/1818 10003KT 1/2SM FG OVC120
TEMPO 1717/1718 1SM BR BKN120 FM171800 VRB03KT 2SM BR
SCT005
TEMPO 1718/1719 3/4SM BR FM171900 12007KT P6SM FEW015
FEW120
TEMPO 1719/1720 2SM BR FM180200 14006KT P6SM BKN030
TEMPO 1802/1807 5SM BR BKN020 FM180700 10005KT P6SM BKN030
OVC090
TEMPO 1807/1811 5SM -SHRA BR BKN020 FM181100 10005KT P6SM
OVC030
TEMPO 1811/1816 5SM BR OVC020
BECMG 1816/1818 28010KT RMK NXT FCST BY 171800Z=


Powell River

SP 17/11/2008 18:41->
SPECI CYPW 171841Z 11004KT 1 1/2SM BR BKN003 OVC250 RMK FG2SF6CI0
VIS W 5=
SA 17/11/2008 18:00->
METAR CYPW 171800Z 11006KT 1SM BR OVC002 09/09 A3002 RMK
FG3SF5 VIS W 5 SLP167=

Comox

FT 17/11/2008 17:59->
TAF CYQQ 171759Z 1718/1818 16004KT 2SM BR OVC004
TEMPO 1718/1721 1/4SM FG VV002 FM172100 14010KT P6SM SCT004
BKN030
TEMPO 1721/1806 2SM BR BKN004 FM180600 27004KT P6SM SCT010
BKN030 RMK NXT FCST BY 180000Z=

[Chuck Ellsworth]

It has always been thus and it will probably always be the same.

These crashes are only fleeting moments of news casts for most people and are soon forgotten.

Speaking of safety why did they close down all the coastal marine weather observation stations?

At least we could get good weather observations from them all over the coast when they were operating.

So I have a suggestion...take a bunch of those employees sitting in the TC offices looking down on the fog from their desks and put them all over the coast as weather observers. That would be something that would be beneficial to aviation.

By the way someone told me they don't look out the windows in the morning because they won't have anything to do in the afternoon.

[ragbagflyer]

Keepitsafe, how did you pull up the metar's from that day? I'd been trying to search for them as well but didn't know where to search. It sure was shitty in Nanaimo and Van that day. I didn't know comox and powell river were that low as well.

[Rubberbiscuit]

[quote=". ."]It has always been thus and it will probably always be the same.

These crashes are only fleeting moments of news casts for most people and are soon forgotten.quote]

Sadly I think there is some truth to that statement. What I find interesting is that when there is an incident/accident at the airline(705) level, there seem to be no hesitation in implementing new rules/procedures/checklists/AD's etc as required. On the ai taxi(703) and somewhat the commuter(704) level this does not seem to be the case. I think the string of Carvan accidents from icing build-up is a great example of this. How many C208's crashed before something was done? 5,10, 12 or even more? Why should it make a difference if there is 9 or 250 lives at risk by not fixing a problem that is obvious?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

The accident record for sea planes flying in bad weather on the west coast is abysmal.

For example I am unable to understand the logic in issuing a SPVFR clearance out of the Vancouver control zone when the weather is guaranteed to be below VFR minimums outside of the control zone.

To my simplistic mind that is not proactive thinking on the part of whoever makes these regulations up.

[_dwj_]

For example I am unable to understand the logic in issuing a SPVFR clearance out of the Vancouver control zone when the weather is guaranteed to be below VFR minimums outside of the control zone.

To my simplistic mind that is not proactive thinking on the part of whoever makes these regulations up.

If the posts above are correct, the visibility inside the control zone was below SVFR minimums (less than 1 mile) at the time. So either the controller f*ed up by issuing the clearance when he shouldn't, or the regulations don't require the controller to actually check the visibility when issuing the clearance (leaving it up to the pilot).

[Chuck Ellsworth]

My comments were not directed at that specific instance.

In my opinion it is unreasonable to issue an approval to start a VFR trip in the Vancouver control zone when it is so easy to determine that the weather is below limits outside of the control zone.

If others do not agree with me so be it.

[flyinthebug]

... I agree 100%. The problem with that is.. then someone would be responsible for that clearance and held accountable.. None of the ppl at FSS or NavCanada want the added burden of trying to keep us safer then we would be.. so dont hold your breath waiting for that to change.. CYA!!!! Its all about CYA.. for TC TSB and NC. And as im being assured by TC.. when ANYTHING goes wrong.. they look to the PIC period. Change will come but not before you and I are taking a long dirt nap.
My 2 cents.
Fly safe all.

[Widow]

TSB Safety Study of VFR Flight into Adverse Weather

The Department of Transport locate automated weather measuring devices in support of VFR operations in the areas of highest risk in mountainous terrain.
TSB-A90-87
<snip>
The Department of Transport examine the policy for the contracting of manned weather observation services with a view to expanding the service in remote locations of highest risk.
TSB-A90-88
<snip>
The Department of Transport promote the upgrading of weather briefing facilities where required, for remotely-located commercial operations, and encourage commercial operators to provide crews with the means of obtaining a weather briefing for all flights.
TSB-A90-89
<snip>
The Department of Transport publicize the availability of Transcribed Weather Services at remote locations.
TSB-A90-90

SATOPs: Weather

The closing of lighthouse stations by the Canadian Coast Guard has reduced the weather information available to pilots flying on the west coast of British Columbia. Lighthouse keepers aren’t accredited aviation weather observers, but the information they provide is essential for west coast VFR pilots since it is the only local weather information available. The Pacific coast is a unique operating environment where the weather conditions change quickly and vary dramatically over short distances due to localized weather phenomena.

Aviation weather reporting was thought to be inadequate even prior to the decommissioning of lighthouses. Weather information is perceived to be geared to IFR aircraft and not appropriate for VFR operations since the information is often not valid within a few miles of the reporting source. VFR pilots on the west coast need to know weather conditions at and below 1000 feet ASL.

Comments were received that weather information from the lighthouse stations, which was issued every three hours, was ignored if it was more than one hour old since pilots are looking for more current observations. Other comments indicated that not all lighthouses were required, only specific ones that are located in areas where there is significant variable weather activity or at other strategic locations.

Marine and aviation weather services appear to be isolated. Better and additional services could be realized if these were amalgamated. Weather information from ships, tugboats, fishing boats and lighthouses should be made available to pilots. Most aircraft are equipped with FM radios and can communicate with fishing boats and other ships.

The operating conditions on the west coast require VFR pilots to push into, through or above fog and cloud. The Task Force was told that if pilots don't operate in these conditions, the companies can't survive because these are typical coastal weather conditions. It has become an acceptable (to industry), though illegal, way of operating. Providing pilots with better weather reporting will enhance their decision making as far as choosing a route to fly or areas to avoid, but it will not stop them from continuing to fly into deteriorating weather conditions. It is important to note that in recent weather-related accidents that have occurred on the west coast and elsewhere, the pilots were flying in weather conditions less than the minimum allowed by regulation.

The British Columbia Air Operators Group is a subcommittee of the British Columbia Aviation Council. NAV CANADA has been involved in discussions with this group in an attempt to resolve the weather service issue, by determining user requirements and meeting those demands. Transport Canada should ascertain the progress of solutions to this problem and determine what effect the loss of weather reporting services has had and will have on aviation safety.

SR 69 - Recommend Transport Canada consult with the British Columbia Air Operators Group and NAV CANADA to determine what is being done to improve the weather reporting services on the west coast of British Columbia. A safety review of the issues would be justified if there is no obvious and timely solution to these problems.

What movement on any of this?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Most aircraft are equipped with FM radios and can communicate with fishing boats and other ships.

This must be something new as none of the commercial airplanes I flew had these radios. ( I had one in my C185 Amphib. for communicating with my customers it was a marine Icom. )

The web cams are great, however the problem is how does a pilot get to look at them unless they are at a location that has internet?

[Widow]

AQW had an FM, but it wasn't working/hooked up.

For the webcams ... surely the pilot could communicate with someone who could look?

[E-Flyer]

"It was, if you don't take it, the other guy will. And if you do that too often, you don't have a job..."

Sadly this is very much a reality. It's pretty rare that an employer will come right out and say go flying or your fired though. Usually it's much more subtle. For many there is a "perceived pressure" that is felt on a daily basis. It's a pressure you put on yourself really and that makes it so much harder to ignore. Sources for this pressure include your boss, passengers, outside commitments (I've GOT to get home tonight etc.), and other pilots at your company. Most of time it's you that's talking yourself into it. . says "The hardest part about flying is knowing when to say no." Sometimes it's almost impossible.

TC should enforce strict rules on management requirements; obviously stricter than the ones they currently have. Isn't it a known fact that bush flying is basically illegal flying? Why isn't TC enforcing anything with respect to that? Is it cause they don't want to interrogate the native lands up north? I don't get it.

[Widow]

Right from TC's own "mouths".

It has become an acceptable (to industry), though illegal, way of operating.

And from the TSB's Safety Study of Survivability in Seaplane Accidents:

The Department of Transport investigate options for imposing strong sanctions on owners and operators who flagrantly disregard the basic tenets of safety in seaplane operations, and make public its findings within one year of the receipt of these recommendations. A94-10

[E-Flyer]

Wow our industry is corrupt.

All those displays at colleges for "Professional Flight Training" and becoming a "Professional Pilot" really flies out of the doors in reality eh ! hehe. Sad reality

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Wow our industry is corrupt.

Yes, especially in the small aircraft charter/sked sector.

And it will continue to be so as long as the public are kept ignorant of the risk they take when they pay for a trip in this sector of aviation.

Every several decades some company gets to be the scapegoat for buracratic inertia and the news media has a circus with them for a few weeks, the Minister of Transport gets up denies any knowledge of such things and bleats a whole string of insincere platitudes and gives the tough guy act into the cameras pledging to clean up the mess.

Then he goes to dinner with the DGCA of the day and they have a good laugh about how easy that was to get out of.

Anyone remember the Tomahawk Airways gong show and the Oscar winning award show they put on with that one?

All those displays at colleges for "Professional Flight Training" and becoming a "Professional Pilot" really flies out of the doors in reality eh ! hehe. Sad reality

What do you expect taking into consideration the low standards the training industry operates under in Canada?

[short bus]

Anyone remember the Tomahawk Airways gong show and the Oscar winning award show they put on with that one?

Hi ., I've never heard of this one, care to summarize it?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Short bus, it was in the eighties I believe in Northern Ontario, there has to be dozens of people on here who remember the details better than I can.

[scrambled_legs]

For example I am unable to understand the logic in issuing a SPVFR clearance out of the Vancouver control zone when the weather is guaranteed to be below VFR minimums outside of the control zone.

To my simplistic mind that is not proactive thinking on the part of whoever makes these regulations up.

... I agree 100%. The problem with that is.. then someone would be responsible for that clearance and held accountable.. None of the ppl at FSS or NavCanada want the added burden of trying to keep us safer then we would be.. so dont hold your breath waiting for that to change.. CYA!!!! Its all about CYA.. for TC TSB and NC. And as im being assured by TC.. when ANYTHING goes wrong.. they look to the PIC period. Change will come but not before you and I are taking a long dirt nap.
My 2 cents.
Fly safe all.

Huh???

I don't get what you're saying, you think it is the controllers fault? Give your head a shake!!! You've taken how many hours in met courses, got a weather briefing from a qualified weather observer for your route? Yet you think that some guy with practically zero met knowledge, or info on the weather outside of 5nm, who just keeps the planes separated, should be the one deciding whether or not it is safe for you to go? You sound like my kid who spilled the milk but will blame everyone but himself. When I'm PIC, I'm the one that makes the decision, not the guy in the tower.

SVFR is simply a means of being able to deny a departure in congested airspace, when the visibility/ceiling doesn't allow for ensured separation between aircraft.

Controllers are very ignorant when it comes to weather. They've taken a crash course on the basics, then learned how to determine prevailing visibility from the tower. That is all. They have no idea whether or not it is a localized fog bank covering the tower only, or the start of a severe weather system that is covering us. They sure as hell aren't required or expected to look up the weather on peoples flight paths, to either allow or deny their flight. We only know what the visibility is around us.

SVFR was not invented to prevent pilots from flying into weather they shouldn't be flying into, it was invented to ensure separation with poor visibility or low ceilings. Controllers are more restricted when the weather is below VFR, in what they can and can not do. They often have no altitude to play with and can't vector or assign flight paths, yet they still have to ensure that VFR traffic doesn't conflict with each other or interfere with IFR flight paths. Because of that, They can deny special VFR, until traffic permits. Again, this has nothing to do with permitting pilots to only fly in safe weather, it's only a means for controllers to safely manage traffic in the current weather conditions. What happens outside of 5 miles is 100% the pilots responsibility and NC will only provide as much foresight into the conditions as possible.

[Rubberbiscuit]

For example I am unable to understand the logic in issuing a SPVFR clearance out of the Vancouver control zone when the weather is guaranteed to be below VFR minimums outside of the control zone.

To my simplistic mind that is not proactive thinking on the part of whoever makes these regulations up.

... I agree 100%. The problem with that is.. then someone would be responsible for that clearance and held accountable.. None of the ppl at FSS or NavCanada want the added burden of trying to keep us safer then we would be.. so dont hold your breath waiting for that to change.. CYA!!!! Its all about CYA.. for TC TSB and NC. And as im being assured by TC.. when ANYTHING goes wrong.. they look to the PIC period. Change will come but not before you and I are taking a long dirt nap.
My 2 cents.
Fly safe all.

Huh???

I don't get what you're saying, you think it is the controllers fault? Give your head a shake!!! You've taken how many hours in met courses, got a weather briefing from a qualified weather observer for your route? Yet you think that some guy with practically zero met knowledge, or info on the weather outside of 5nm, who just keeps the planes separated, should be the one deciding whether or not it is safe for you to go? You sound like my kid who spilled the milk but will blame everyone but himself. When I'm PIC, I'm the one that makes the decision, not the guy in the tower.

SVFR is simply a means of being able to deny a departure in congested airspace, when the visibility/ceiling doesn't allow for ensured separation between aircraft.

Controllers are very ignorant when it comes to weather. They've taken a crash course on the basics, then learned how to determine prevailing visibility from the tower. That is all. They have no idea whether or not it is a localized fog bank covering the tower only, or the start of a severe weather system that is covering us. They sure as hell aren't required or expected to look up the weather on peoples flight paths, to either allow or deny their flight. We only know what the visibility is around us.

SVFR was not invented to prevent pilots from flying into weather they shouldn't be flying into, it was invented to ensure separation with poor visibility or low ceilings. Controllers are more restricted when the weather is below VFR, in what they can and can not do. They often have no altitude to play with and can't vector or assign flight paths, yet they still have to ensure that VFR traffic doesn't conflict with each other or interfere with IFR flight paths. Because of that, They can deny special VFR, until traffic permits. Again, this has nothing to do with permitting pilots to only fly in safe weather, it's only a means for controllers to safely manage traffic in the current weather conditions. What happens outside of 5 miles is 100% the pilots responsibility and NC will only provide as much foresight into the conditions as possible.

It is as simple as this. Min vis for VFR flight in a control zone is 3 Miles, min vis for flight in uncontrolled airspace is 1Mile. I belive SFVR was introduced as a means for companies that operate mostly in uncontrolled airspace to enter or exit a control zone/control area when the weather outside the control zone is above VFR. It is used extensively in the north.
I mentioned it earlier and I will ask again, is 1sm really enough in the mountains?? I ask cause never did have the pleasure of flying VFR on the coast.

[scrambled_legs]

I belive SFVR was introduced as a means for companies that operate mostly in uncontrolled airspace to enter or exit a control zone/control area when the weather outside the control zone is above VFR. It is used extensively in the north.

SVFR was NOT introduced for the above reasons. Please point to one reference that indicates this, other than what you believe. It may be more common up north but I've personally used it from the north to the southern border of USA as well. I don't think it's exclusive to North America either, but I'm not sure.

SVFR is there for traffic control. It has nothing to do with preventing pilots from killing themselves by flying into bad weather. If the ceiling is 100' and the vis 1sm, I can't deny you a SVFR flight in rising terrain, unless it is due to traffic. The only weather limit we have is visibility. Just like we can't deny a take off clearance for an aircraft departing into freezing rain with no de-ice. The pilot is responsible and because of that, pilots receive significantly more training and resources to make a more informed decision then ATC.

As far as 1sm being adequate, just like on the prairies, it depends. If it's a fog bank that ends as soon as you're 10 feet off the ground with no forecast fog at the arrival end, then it's far more than adequate and chances are the winds are low and the flight will be safer then a non SVFR flight, as soon as you're above it. If it's 1sm in hail from embedded TCU's, then I don't think it matters if you're in the rocks or on the flat, you shouldn't be flying. It's up to you to make an educated and informed decision, base on your local knowledge, training and information gathered. SVFR has it's time and place but only if logic and common sense are present in the judgment. Hopefully some pilots out there can still make that judgment without having it spelled out in front of them as a rule introduced by TC.

[just curious]

Anyone remember the Tomahawk Airways gong show and the Oscar winning award show they put on with that one?

Tomahawk was a Deer Lake Based cessna 402 that departed a runway under construction, and never made it off with the load.

A video of the investigation was produced. http://www.tc.gc.ca/pacific/air/civilav ... ibrary.htm

Same management team is in business today in NWO/Man

[petpad]

[]

[CD]

Where I worked once upon a time, the float base was just outside the control zone. It was somewhat interesting to watch the traffic on radar moving in and out on days when VFR (special or otherwise) just wasn't an option...