Another floatplane accident/rescue?

[Cat Driver]

But does saltwater/freshwater make a difference to the shock to the piston engine cylinders from being suddenly cooled? The plane was running when it suddenly flipped, right?

All depends on the temperature of the water widow and the engine.

On whether the engine was suddenly immersed in boiling water or very cold water such as in a lake at this time of year.

[twotter]

The airplane in question is very well known to Pt6.. The incident in question is also very well known to him..

The incident happened on Crawfish lake which is in the middle of Nootka Island.. The engine was not hot, it was at less than t/o power while taxiing.. The person salvaging the airplane probably has more knowledge of the Beaver in his little finger than most posters do in their heads.. He was also working in conjuction with what I would consider the best and most knowledgeable person in the world for Beavers.

For all of you questioners, give it a rest. This was a good airplane, maintained by the aforementioned guru of beavers. It was flown by a person who has in excess of 25000 hours. A fair bit of that on floats..

Sometimes shit happens.. This time it did.. Let it go at that..

Cheers all..

[CD]

This was a good airplane, maintained by the aforementioned guru of beavers. It was flown by a person who has in excess of 25000 hours. A fair bit of that on floats..

Sometimes shit happens.. This time it did.. Let it go at that..

As Widow has been continuously pointing out, this was also a situation where three people could have lost their lives due to inadequate storage/maintenance/inspection of the floats.

So, possibly the questions should be asked to let others know what happened and how this "shit" could be prevented from happening again.

Or, should we just conclude that since the Beaver is a proven design, there is nothing new to be learned from this incident?

[carholme]

What are we saying here, that it is OK for some to break the rules but not others?

This guy is lucky that his 25,000 hours of experience did not end at 25,001 hours.

The "hot submerged" rule doesnt care whether the engine was at idle or T/O. PT6-114A states that T/O power was applied. As it was, the engine was already warmed up to operating temp and the rule is valid.

For anybody to try and gloss this over as an OK event based on past history is not good enough. With all of the problems we are seeing in Canada's "bush aviation", this doesn't do any of us any good.

The hot engine and potential prop damage from the immersion are just the tip of the possibilities in this scenario.

carholme

[CID]

It’s tough, if not impossible to figure out what happened from our vantage point behind our computers. We don’t know if the engine sustained damage or what inspections were done before the airplane was flown out of the lake.

It looks like it was inspected somewhat closely to get it running and in fact a mag was replaced. Any AME worth his salt would take a good look around and perform a run-up and leak check before releasing it for a ferry flight.

And let’s discuss this mysterious “ferry flight” for those of us that are less informed. A ferry flight permit is a type of “specific purpose” flight authority. It is used when the normal flight authority (usually a C of A) is not in force because the airplane doesn’t conform to it’s type design but is “safe for flight” under appropriate limitations.

A ferry flight permit allows for the airplane to make its way back to a maintenance base to complete repairs keeping in mind that an AME still has to sign it off “safe for flight”. Furthermore, TC is normally involved to apply the airworthiness limitations for the flight. Those limitations can include things like “day VFR only” or “no flight over built-up areas” or “from XXX to YYY airport only”.

Some operators have limited authority to issue ferry permits without prior permission from TC.

Certain basic limitations are in place like prohibition of commercial ops under the ferry permit, flightcrew onboard only, etc.

There’s also a requirement for getting permission from the TSB before you move the airplane in the case of a “reportable aviation occurrence, other than a reportable incident”.

Although I agree that it may not be possible to determine the full extent of the damage to the engine at the lake, it’s certainly in the realm of possibility that that airplane could be made “safe for flight” for a short VFR trip back to base.

I guess the questions remain, whether or not a ferry permit was issued or even required depending on the depth of the inspection done at the lake and why the leaks weren’t detected at installation of the floats or during preflight.

[confused]

Widow,are the cador reports open to the public or meant for the person tc sends them to.

[Widow]

CADORS

CD posted the link when it came back on line.

And CD, you've hit a little nail on the head for me. I have a big problem with floats/amphibs that are "aging" as there is very little clear guidance for their maintenance. And AQW's floats are a clear indicator that even those guidelines are not always adhered to.

[snoopy]

confused,
The CADORS are now finally freely available on TC's website:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/applicatio ... yframe.asp

And, if you'd like some insight as to one operator's views on safety information and why it should be made accessible, not hidden, so we can share and learn from our mistakes, here is a quote from our company's recent testimony at Parliament hill:

"Our research has shown that Transport Canada is using sanitized statistics to support their safety claims, as we pointed out in our letter of April 22. Transport Canada is telling us we have the safest aviation system in the world. They said the same thing ten years ago, in the SATOPS final report, yet many of the same issues discussed in that report continue to exist today.

If we are really concerned about safety and truly want to become the safest country in the world, then we need to start sharing information with a view to discussing and learning from our mistakes. Instead of sanitizing and restricting safety information — such as the service difficulty reports, Transportation Safety Board accident and incident reports, and the CADORS—we need to make this information more accessible in its entirety with industry so we can learn from it.

At present, this information is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain from Transport Canada and the TSB, who continuously cite privacy issues as the reason not to make the information available. As far as we're concerned, the day an operator receives the right to operate and provide services for the public, they become accountable to the public, to the government, to the industry, and to themselves for the way they operate."

Up until shortly after we testified, CADORS was restricted to "approved" recipients. In years past it had been available in today's format, only to "approved" recipients. A few years ago, "privacy concerns" were cited as a reason to suspend all access to this safety information. After many protests from industry, the government reluctantly granted limited access in the form of daily (Monday to Friday) batched emails that were completely useless, not searchable and not available in complete English AND complete French. The recent release of this information is a significant step forward.

If you would like further information on safety and privacy issues (and not just our views either) , we might suggest you have a read of the following:
http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteePu ... &COM=10462
(hit print format for a more digestible PDF file)
Of particular interest is the testimony of private researcher Ken Rubin.

Hope this answers your question...

Best Regards,
Snoopy

[CID]

The CADORs can be a valuable source of information for operators, maintainers and pilots.

Unfortunately, the media has access to them now too. Some (not all) media people will use the CADORs to validate their aviation related horror stories. The average aviation professional understands that the CADORs are largely preliminary data and the accuracy may not be perfect.

The average uninformed newspaper writer sees in the CADORs a ton of reported incidents and accidents a day over the skies of Canada and can surmise that the entire system is on the brink of disaster.

I agree that the CADORs should remain on-line but there should be greater effort in informing readers that;

Transport Canada endeavours to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the data contained within CADORS, however, the information within should be treated as preliminary, unsubstantiated and subject to change.

Right now it's just small print on the web page. Perhaps a mandatory signup and terms of use agreement would be in order.

[snoopy]

And again...

"As far as we're concerned, the day an operator receives the right to operate and provide services for the public, they become accountable to the public, to the government, to the industry, and to themselves for the way they operate."

Of course this is just our opinion, perhaps you would prefer a less accountable industry.

Cheers,
Snoopy

[twotter]

This was a good airplane, maintained by the aforementioned guru of beavers. It was flown by a person who has in excess of 25000 hours. A fair bit of that on floats..

Sometimes shit happens.. This time it did.. Let it go at that..

As Widow has been continuously pointing out, this was also a situation where three people could have lost their lives due to inadequate storage/maintenance/inspection of the floats.

So, possibly the questions should be asked to let others know what happened and how this "shit" could be prevented from happening again.

Or, should we just conclude that since the Beaver is a proven design, there is nothing new to be learned from this incident?

CD, you of all people I didn't expect this from.. Where do you get the idea that the airplane/floats were in bad shape?? This airplane was cherry, maintained by one of the best Beaver shops in the country. The fellow who owns it has no shortage of money and if something was broke, it got fixed..

Where do you people get off slinging shit about the airplane and the pilot when you don't even know what happened? Hell, most of you still don't get it that it happenend in a lake!!

As for "Shit happens", this people was an incident, not an accident, the airplane was taxiing when it went over.. Was it fun? Not a chance.

It just amazes me how all you armchair quarterbacks come out slinging shit when most of you have probably never flown a Beaver, and even less even know where Nootka Island is, let alone Crawfish Lake..

As for the ferry flight, there is nothing stopping you from ferrying it to a maintenance shop for proper repairs. In fact, I don't think you see too many airplanes getting that kind of maintenance on the shore of a lake..

Don't you people have something better to bitch about? Next time try something you know a little about..

[CID]

Snoopy, in your mind “being accountable” might mean pure speculation based on preliminary and possibly inaccurate information, but not for me.

It just amazes me how all you armchair quarterbacks come out slinging shit when most of you have probably never flown a Beaver, and even less even know where Nootka Island is, let alone Crawfish Lake.

What does never flying a Beaver or knowing where Crawfish Lake have to do with commenting on this incident?

The floats (you know those big things that hang off float planes and aren't supposed to have water in them) filled with water when they shouldn't have. You don't have to be a rocket surgeon to discuss that simple fact. As far as where "Crawfish Lake" is, who cares? I'm pretty sure its a big hole filled with water and that's all I need to know.

[xsbank]

'Shit' doesn't just happen. I would have thought that there are enough of you out there to be able to assemble one brain large enough to figure out that there is always a chain of events to cause an accident.

Somebody installed a set of 'faulty' floats on this aircraft and the the result was 3 people nearly losing their lives on a cold beach in Nootka Sound. The RCC was required and the an expensive a/c and her crew were put at risk to save them. If it had not been the spring but the dead of winter there may have been fatalities. I don't know how many of you have been to Crawfish but in bad weather there is only one very small one-way pass into that lake that is frequently closed.

I'd say that some "Beaver guru" f*cked up here, wouldn't you?

We, as pilots, have a duty to learn what happened here, to ask the tough questions and learn from what happened. To gloss over the events displays a lack of professionalism that is breathtaking. Whatever happened here needs to be examined in detail - once we had a TSB that would have done that for us, but that agency seems to be out to lunch right now too. So to tell us to just leave it alone, that "shit happens" is specious, moronic and simply nonsense.

[Widow]

twotter, you said yourself that "The airplane in question is very well known to Pt6.. The incident in question is also very well known to him.. "

He/she told us "The plane was on wheels and they needed it on floats for this trip so they pulled the floats (amphib) out of the weeds where they have been for the last 2 years and put them on. Ok no prob." and "Because the floats had not been used for so long there are 4 gromets in the nose of each float that were not keeping the water out filling the fist compartment in each float. The power was added the nose started to dive. The power was pulled to idle the water sloshed forward and presto over it went. Yes it was running when it went in."

This indicates that the gromet leak was not noticed when the float compartments were (knowing a little about floats, as I do - and having the DHC-2 maintenance manuals at my side) filled prior to use after being in "the weeds" for two years. It makes me wonder if the guru you refer to is the same one with which I have issue.

[rfcPilot]

You'd think floats being un-used for so long that they'd get inspected.

What is the official procedure for swapping the wheels to the floats anyways? I mean, between the floats, the rigging, and all that, there must be some kind of maintenance release or something?

[Widow]

What the exact guidelines are depends on whether they are the original EDO 346's or not. Either way though, the compartments should have been filled with freshwater to test for leaks before use.

[rfcPilot]

Well, I can appreciate that different floats have different requirements, but 'floats' as a whole in general. Dont they have general requirements? Such as freshwater leak test as you said. Or checking to make sure that individual compartments arent leaking into one-another. Checking for rust, corrosion, etc. Do they have a TBO or something similar as well?

[snoopy]

Standard 625 Appendix G - Inspection after Abnormal Occurrences

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regse ... /a625g.htm

[Widow]

There is nothing in the CARs which refer specifically to floats. They are covered only by airframe rules. The original Beaver manuals do require testing upon installation and periodic leakage tests, although no guidelines are there for how often these tests should be done. There is also nothing specific regarding when to overhaul floats. Of course, I don't think anyone expected them to be used for 50+ years when they were built. My investigation into these original floats and their maintenance guidelines has made me aware that the rules are wholly inadequate. Nonetheless, from the original Beaver manual -

For amphibs, item 18 of 25 on the periodic inspection list: "Inspect the float interior for damage, dents and loose rivets. Check for seepage between compartments and external leaks by flushing out each compartment, one at a time with fresh water."

Test procedure after installation of floats: "Fill alternate compartments with water, noting any leaks between bulkheads", "Fill all compartments and inspect for leaks outside" and "Compartments should be filled to the top".

[CD]

Here are a couple of articles discussing issues that also came up a few pages ago in this thread:

ASL 4/2001 - From the Investigator’s Desk: Underwater Locator Beacons
ASL 1/2005 - From The Investigator’s Desk: Passenger Briefings and Safety Features Cards in Seaplane Operations

[Widow]

The expeditious location of underwater aircraft wreckage is not only important for humanitarian reasons, but it is also usually essential for investigative purposes. Examination of aircraft wreckage is a fundamental part of an accident investigation, and it is particularly important in those accidents where a recorder has not been installed on an aircraft and/or the crew do not survive.

Huh, you don't say.

[carholme]

We can discuss the floats till we are blue in the face but I still think the main problem which will arise is going to be the operation of a hot submerged engine. They may find questions arise about the floats but the rule breaker is still the engine if the facts as stated by PT6-114A are valid, then the susequent inspections of instruments and other systems.

carholme

[wasYKnowFJ]

This thread is getting too long, I'm starting to forget who I want to vent on, and for what.

The initial incident seems to be a simple oversight. It should have been caught by the installer of the floats, found during testing, and checked prior to take-off by the pilot. Everyone involved (and those reading through this thread) knows what to do to correct it, and probably wonders why they didn't see it before it happened. Can something be learned from it so that it won't happen again? Probably, although it's nothing new learned, just a costly reminder to remain vigilant.

As for the serviceability after the incident… How about we trust the professionals to decide whether the airplane is airworthy for a ferry flight, or commercial flights, or scrap metal? No one really thinks that someone just randomly suggested that the airplane be flipped right-way-up, and flown out. Do they? Quick, find a dumb engineer to sign it out, and a dumber pilot to fly it. Give people some credit. Just because you wouldn't do it doesn't mean it can't be done. And just because you can't understand how it was done, doesn't mean it was unsafe or against the rules.

I really bugs me how people here ask for information on what happened only to attack those who come forward. Notice how those who have experience add the information, and those without just criticize? Criticism without a solution isn't helping anyone.

I hope the official report gets widely disseminated, and people learn from the chain of mistakes. There isn't a need for more rules, or stricter enforcement, or punishment of those responsible. It’s about being aware of potential problems, and taking the time and effort to check and recheck your work, and the work of others.

[phligheye]

MOCE

[twotter]

This thread is getting too long, I'm starting to forget who I want to vent on, and for what.

The initial incident seems to be a simple oversight. It should have been caught by the installer of the floats, found during testing, and checked prior to take-off by the pilot. Everyone involved (and those reading through this thread) knows what to do to correct it, and probably wonders why they didn't see it before it happened. Can something be learned from it so that it won't happen again? Probably, although it's nothing new learned, just a costly reminder to remain vigilant.

As for the serviceability after the incident… How about we trust the professionals to decide whether the airplane is airworthy for a ferry flight, or commercial flights, or scrap metal? No one really thinks that someone just randomly suggested that the airplane be flipped right-way-up, and flown out. Do they? Quick, find a dumb engineer to sign it out, and a dumber pilot to fly it. Give people some credit. Just because you wouldn't do it doesn't mean it can't be done. And just because you can't understand how it was done, doesn't mean it was unsafe or against the rules.

I really bugs me how people here ask for information on what happened only to attack those who come forward. Notice how those who have experience add the information, and those without just criticize? Criticism without a solution isn't helping anyone.

I hope the official report gets widely disseminated, and people learn from the chain of mistakes. There isn't a need for more rules, or stricter enforcement, or punishment of those responsible. It’s about being aware of potential problems, and taking the time and effort to check and recheck your work, and the work of others.

Well said..