Downed plane’s engine may be recovered

[Widow]

Downed plane’s engine may be recovered


By Paul Rudan
Campbell River Mirror
May 26 2006

Fifteen months later, the investigation into a fatal floatplane crash is still very much alive.
“Hopefully by next week we’ll have the engine,” said Kirsten Stevens, whose husband David died following the Feb. 28, 2005 tragedy which claimed five lives.
While the recovery of the MJM Air Beaver aircraft engine will take place on the east side of Quadra Island – in over 800 feet of water – the RCMP is still conducting its on investigation on dry land.
On Wednesday, according to Stevens, a police investigator was in Campbell River interviewing the people connected with the floatplane company, the search and other aircraft operators.
“I know he was down on the (Tyee) Spit, talking to people,” she said.
As for engine recovery, the Transportation Safety Board has promised to pay up to $10,000 of the cost. A remote operated vessel (ROV) will be used to bring the engine to the surface.
“After careful deliberation, (TSB) has decided to offer assistance in the recovery of the (plane’s) engine currently at the bottom of Sutil Channel,” wrote Nick Stoss, TSB’s director of air investigations, in a May 16 e-mail to Stevens.
The ROV belongs to Mike Mortinson of Courtenay who operates Industrial Underwater Surveyors. Last July, the ROV was used to confirm the location of the missing plane which had eluded an extensive search by the Canadian Navy.
Mortinson is donating his time to run the ROV with the federal money covering the costs of recent repairs to his vessel. Without Mortinson’s involvement, the recovery mission could have gone out to contract and may have cost more, or it may have never been approved by the TSB.
The Beaver floatplane crashed moments after taking off from the Tyee Spit. Stevens, and other family members of the men who died, believe pilot Arnold Feast was trying to land the plane on the water after experiencing engine trouble.
They theorize the plane landed hard, went into a spin, which tore off the right wing and broke the right float in two. The men then escaped but perished in the cold sea water as the plane sank.
The body of passenger David Stevens was found on the Quadra shore and his official cause of death was drowning. The bodies of the pilot and passengers Fabian Bedard and brothers Doug and Trevor Decock were never found.
The families of the men are hoping the recovered engine will provide more clues as to what happened that fateful morning. However, for now, TSB is on the record stating they don’t believe engine trouble was the cause of the accident.
“The TSB has reviewed recent maintenance work orders for this aircraft and find no discrepancy that would account for a rough running engine or that would lead to an accident,” wrote TSB’s regional manager Bill Yearwood in a letter to the coroner.
TSB investigators will examine the engine if the recovery operation is successful.

[Mitch Cronin]

"TSB is on the record stating they don’t believe engine trouble was the cause of the accident.
“The TSB has reviewed recent maintenance work orders for this aircraft and find no discrepancy that would account for a rough running engine or that would lead to an accident,” "

Those are two different statements. Did he say they "don't believe" engine failure was the cause, or did he say they have no evidence that points to it as a cause?

The quote from Bill Yearwood is only saying they haven't found anything to lead them in that direction, not that they "don't believe".... So are they "on record" as saying that or not? ...

One would have to be pretty daft to conclude that just because an engine had no prior issues that it couldn't suddenly do so. Somehow I doubt someone working for the TSB would be so daft.

... so without any evidence to the contrary, I guess we'll conclude this is another case where the reporter cocked up the story.

Best of luck to those watching this all unfold. I hope the engine is recovered and you get all the answers you're looking for.

[ei ei owe]

Is a Pratt like an old piece of wood at depths in water? Stays preserved for people to look at at later date?
I really appreciate what the TSB does but to be reported by retards in the papers and made to look like a bunch of idiots is wrong. Those TSB guys do good work only to have their reports edited and compressed to the point where you get articles that make the TSB appear incompetent.
What's one to do....

[Widow]

Is a Pratt like an old piece of wood at depths in water? Stays preserved for people to look at at later date?

No, of course not. However, it is mostly made of steel and aluminum (the magnesium will have disintigrated) and should hold together just fine. It's been 15 months, not 15 years.

As to

I really appreciate what the TSB does but to be reported by retards in the papers and made to look like a bunch of idiots is wrong. Those TSB guys do good work only to have their reports edited and compressed to the point where you get articles that make the TSB appear incompetent.

and

Those are two different statements. Did he say they "don't believe" engine failure was the cause, or did he say they have no evidence that points to it as a cause?

The quote from Bill Yearwood is only saying they haven't found anything to lead them in that direction, not that they "don't believe".... So are they "on record" as saying that or not? ...

One would have to be pretty daft to conclude that just because an engine had no prior issues that it couldn't suddenly do so. Somehow I doubt someone working for the TSB would be so daft.

... so without any evidence to the contrary, I guess we'll conclude this is another case where the reporter cocked up the story.

Actually, if you read Yearwoods letter (which was to be the investigatory conclusion) here:

http://www3.telus.net/public/t9232724/i ... oroner.pdf

you'll find that his investigators believed it was not an engine problem despite seeing this:


, and having people who overheard the plane sounding troubled as it flew overhead. The letter actually implies it was pilot error. We had to force them to return for a second look, and it took months of hounding and going overhead to get them to commit to helping us raise the engine. To this day, the investigators persist with the idea that the oil on the windshield and fuselage came after the crash.

Another expert came to view the wreckage at the end of April ... here is his resport. These are his personal views and observations, not in any way "official" as a Ministers Delegate Maintenance.

"April 29, 2006

To Whom it may concern.

As a Aircraft Maintenance Engineer with 28 years of experience working on DHC-2’s, and having been involved with the Ministers Delegate Maintenance program for 6 years, I have been asked by the family members of the victims of the fatal accident of DHC-2 C-GAQW to inspect the retrieved aircraft and submit a report on my observations with respect to causative factors of this accident. I also have possession of video taken at the site as well as of the recovery process which I have reviewed.

On April 28, 2006 I attended the storage locker where the aircraft has been kept, in dry secure storage. The recovered portions of the aircraft included both floats, empennage, LH wing and flight controls, and the fuselage including the engine mount, engine accessory section. Sections remaining at the accident site would include the RH wing, engine power section, propeller and cowlings. The power section did not come up with the accessory section due to magnesium construction of the blower/ intake section having corroded away due to salt water emersion.

Most of the aircraft has a layer of organic growth due to being submerged for some period of time. Due to the storage conditions this growth is now dried up. Immediately apparent is the fact the windscreen, lower inboard section of the left wing, the right side of the fuselage including approximately 1 foot up the side of the vertical fin, as well as the right inboard leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer, have been covered with engine oil. This pattern of oil leakage is consistent with a major oil leak suddenly developing in flight, concentrated on the right side due to prop wash, which adheres to the colder dry surface of the aluminum, and is not easily removed. Subsequent to the accident, oil would be very unlikely to stick to the surfaces as they would be wet with water, and the oil contamination pattern would not be so well defined.

The aircraft damage viewed would suggest the mechanics of the accident involved a forced landing due to lack of visibility through the aircraft windscreen compounded by poor visibility due to meteorological conditions at the time. A power off nose up attitude would produce a rapid decent with a heavily loaded aircraft. The aft section of the RH float is bent up, with suggests a heal dig which would have bounced the aircraft back into the air. A slight kink in the upper LH wing half way between the strut and tip, plus the tip being knocked off in an upward motion suggest the LH wing may have contacted the water at some point in the chain of events. The most significant damage appears to have been caused by the aircraft subsequently stalling and striking the water in a nose and RH wing down attitude with a sideways component to the direction of travel. Both upper diagonal tubes of the engine mount have tension fractures (are completely separated mid tube), and both lower mount tubes have compression bulges just above the firewall mount, indication a significant vertical inpact The forward section of the right float has basically exploded from the impact of being driven up and being struck by the propeller and impact with the water. At the same instant the right wing impacted the water and was torn from the fuselage, as indicated by upper cabin damage. Video shows the right wing on the bottom with a near 90 degree bend upward, just outboard of the outer flap attach, also what appears to be the exhaust intensifier tube is completely flattened by the impact. Compression damage to the left mid section of the fuselage suggests the aircraft struck the water with a sideways component consistent with a stall.

I do not believe the aircraft cart wheeled into the water as there is very little damage to the Left wing, the horizontal stab, elevators, or rudder and vertical fin as viewed in underwater video. Damage to the fin, rudder, and elevator tip was incurred during salvage.

Based on my experience and my observation of the aircraft I would conclude that the initiating cause of this accident was a failure of one of the upper cylinders, or given the amount of oil and the short duration of the flight, a failure of the cylinder base studs. I support this with reference to the Transport Canada Service Difficulty Reporting Data base http://www.tc.gc.ca/wsdrs/ quick search of Pratt & Whitney R-985-AN 14 and 14B, between April of 2000 and today shows 99 service difficulty reports were submitted related to cylinders and power section problems. Of these 39 were related to Cylinder cracking or complete head separation. 9 incidents were
reported of cylinder base stud failures. The remaining reports included cracked crankshafts, cracked cases, cracked or broken pistons, and broken or bent connecting rods. These are only reported incidents, more are likely to have occurred which are not reported.

Several problems can create the circumstances for these types of failures. Most of these cylinders are old and are heat cycle fatigued; they may have been overhauled several times, and are subject to mandatory ultrasonic testing at overhaul, as well as a visual inspection every 100 hrs. Unfortunately many cylinders continue to fail, even within 50 hrs after the UT testing has been completed. Often the visual inspections can miss crack indications due to oil staining and difficulty in accessing the full circumference of the cylinder head area. It is my belief that a crack can start internally within the head and progress into a complete head separation in far less than the 100 hrs specified in the inspection requirement. As these are supercharged engines another factor may be over boosting an engine (too much manifold pressure for the given engine rpm). This is not common or likely with experienced pilots.
The third and most troubling possibility is the use of substandard parts. As these engines are so old, many of the parts are now being made by after market suppliers, referred to as FAA-PMA. Such parts are suppose to be equal to the original manufactures parts, however this is not always so. Items such as cylinder base studs could easily fall into this classification.

In light of this information I would consider a review of the engine technical logs to identify if any cylinders have been replaced due to cracking, or if any base studs have been replaced due to failing. This would be indicative of the overall condition this engine at the time of the accident.

Given the number of reported occurrences of these types of failures, that in my opinion has a very high probability of being what initiated the unfortunate chain of events that lead to the death of the occupants of C-GAQW, I believe that the recovery of the power section of this engine for more detailed investigation should be essential in ensuring safety for the large number of people in remote locations who travel in aircraft equipped with these engines. Further, a fair question to be asked would be to inquire what follow up investigations have been carried out with respect to the 9 instances of cylinder base stud failure reported, and what actions have been initiated to reduce these occurrences.

As part of my review I have a copy of Bill Yearwood’s letter to Ms. Larcombe at the Chief Coroners office related to this accident, dated September 21, 2005. With respect to comments related to TSB’s examination of the wreckage on July 29, 2005. I would like to forward two comments which may have a bearing on the conclusions arrived at. First, the statement that the engine mounts were in place and showed no sign of impact damage is contrary to my observations as noted above. At the retrieval the aircraft was upside down which would have made the damage I observed very difficult to detect. Second, the propeller control was set to fine pitch. This position according to the DHC-2 flight manual is used for take off, prior to landing, and in the event of an engine failure. Had the pilot flown into the water would the prop control not have been pulled back to 1850 rpm, the recommended cruise setting?

This concludes my observations and comments. In the interest of public safety I would be happy to discuss this matter with anyone concerned."



[/quote]

[ei ei owe]

That's a well written report.

I can only imagine that the subpar after market parts suppliers are not only limited to old 985's.

[Widow]

For those interested, watch the news Sunday or early next week. Engine is coming up. The buck passing is about to stop.

[pilot04]

I'm not convinced everything is in the open concerning this accident.

[Widow]

I'm not convinced everything is in the open concerning this accident.

You are so right. But, what exactly are your concerns?

[mellow_pilot]

having people who overheard the plane sounding troubled as it flew overhead.

Not to detract from the rest of the post, which is quite intersting and informative in many respects, but...

The sounds of and aircraft flying overhead can hardly be used as evidence. Unless there was someone who knows the aircraft well on hand, in which case, disregard the following.

I find it hard to believe that a layman could possibly know what and aircraft in trouble sounds like, I've stood with people at then end of a runway, watch and airplane take off and throttle down to climb power after reaching safe altitude, only to have the people next to me start screaming about the engin failing. Same thing for stalls, forced approach practice... the general public generally doesn't really have a clue as to what is normal operation.

All that aside, I hope that this accident investigation is resolved to the satisfaction of all involved and for the benefit of flight saftey.

[Widow]

Well, most of the sound witnesses were people who lived on Quadra Island, which is accross from Campbell River spit, a hugely busy float-plane base which flies, fishers, loggers, tourists etc ... regularly throughout the day, all year round. They can often identify what type of plane is overhead (beaver, twin-beech, cessna) without looking ... but those 985's do have a particular sound ...

So, in this case, sound witnesses should have been extremely credible.

[Widow]

Finally, TSB has sent a new investigator to look again at the wreckage recovered from C-GAQW on July 28, 2005. What was initially planned as a half day's work has turned into two days worth with enxtensive photographs and samples being taken. By the end of the day today, several boxes will be sent to the TSB labs and the investigator will return to begin work on a new report. The families of those on board the plane feel confident that pilot Arnie Feast's reputation will be restored as the new report will surely indicate that it was indeed an engine problem that precipitated the need to make an emergency landing on glassy water. Watch this thread for updates!

Oh, and by the way ... we haven't given up on that engine ...

[Widow]

Some of you will be glad to know that the TSB investigator started off day two calling in the coroner to request assistance in getting the engine up. It seems the original investigators missed something.

[Tiny Voices]

It seems the easiest thing in the world for someone who has suffered a personal tradgedy such as yourself would be to blame the pilot.I never met the man but, thanks for standing up for his reputation.I'm sure it means the world to his loved ones to have your support.

Best wishes to those touched by this most unfortunate event for a resolution that brings peace of mind.

[floatingbeaver]

After reading the well written preliminary report posted above I am reminded by my engine failure on takeoff. I had a bearing in the blower fan fail thereby resulting in a catastrophic engine failure. As stated in the above report my a/c had oil all down the bottom and right side too, all 5 gallons in only a few seconds. This was my third flight of the day and the engine was performing perfect up until then. It had about 220 hrs since last overhaul. I still have what is left of the blower fan as a reminder. Unlike a blown cylinder where sometimes you still have power this incident resulted in no power and an immediate descent. This will definitely be a good piece to solving the puzzle when the engine is recovered.

[Crazed Windscreen]

Let me first state this. I mean no disrespect to the deceased or the loved ones by my comments.

We train annually, as in the case of the Beaver, during our PCC in the event that such emergencies take place. We also train in other areas, such as dangerous goods CRM, PDM and in seaplanes, underwater egress.
We have SMS systems and Ops spec's and regulations. All to help us do our job

With training you must then add experience, throw in common sense coupled with self preservation and you have the makings for as successful a pilot as one could expect.

However, no one truly knows what happened out there on that dreary day. Not until we are thrust into such situations do we as pilots truly know how we would react and respond.

The TSB has a level of responsibility to not only the families and victims of such a catastrophe, but to all of us involved in this much loved occupation. To ensure, to the best of there abilities that the facts be stated and subsequent conclusions be made. After all, they are human to.

But it's not and exact science. We will never know what the pilot did or did not do to make a successful emergency landing. The most credible witnesses are no longer with us

Look at the Swiss air crash. Would they have survived if the Captain had said to hell with the SOP's and gotten on the ground ASAP. No one will know.

So my advice to those that are left to wonder how and why is this:
Comfort may not come in the form of a TSB report, maybe it will.
Look to those around you and find strength in your fellow man. The brother hood of pilots runs deep and we are all touched by your loss.

Move forward in life, and remember your loved ones how the lived, not how the died.

My sincerest condolences to all of you.

Best of luck

CW

[Widow]

If you know all the facts that we know, you would be able to make a pretty good call on what happened that day. The new TSB investigator is very much in agreement with us about what may have precipitated the need for an emergency landing, and whatmay have caused the incident to become fatal. Transport Canada has also now expressed an interest in examining the floats.

Don't misinterpret my vehemence as vengeful. I am very much at peace with what happened to my husband ... he was supposed to be sitting beside the pilot in his floater coat with his underwater egress training a week under his belt.

My husband loved beavers, loved flying ... dreamt of owning a fish shack in the charlotte's to fly in and out of. He would want me to be doing what I'm doing. We are fighting very hard to make these pacific skies a safer place to fly - for pilots and passengers alike.

[Widow]

For those interested, WorksafeBC is kicking in a $10,000 contribution under their "Lessons Learned Program" ... families are once again trying to arrange for recovery.

We believe it to be significant that WorksafeBC has, by making this contribution, agreed with the importance of finding the cause of this accident.

[Widow]

With some funding to be provided by the Transportation Safety Board ($10,000) and WorksafeBC ($10,000), the families are making arrangements for Nuytco (dive company) to arrive aboard the Inlet Raider (barge) on February 27th, 2007. At this time, in all likelihood, silt will be blown away from the engine and the lift will be performed either late in the day or on the 28th. Attempts to reduce cost will include asking BC Ferries to reduce transportation costs for Nuytco and their equipment to come from the mainland, and finding suitable accomodation for the crew in Campbell River. Anyone who may be able to help with these endeavours may contact me using the details listed below.

Stay safe.

Kirsten Stevens
492 S. McPhedran Rd
Campbell River, BC
V9W 5K5
Tel: (250)287-2725
kis.ca@telus.net

[sky's the limit]

Widow,

I just wanted you to know, I read your website the other day, and have been reading most of what you write on here - I have the utmost respect for what you are doing, and wish you all the best. I just wish it wasn't so difficult to get things done.

STL

[Widow]

Thank you STL. As most of you know, I hope that this case will open the doors for anyone who comes after .... to not have to jump through hoops in order to get a gov't agency to do it's job.

[Widow]

So far, most of the news has got things wrong. Here is what actually happened.

Transport Safety Board and WorksafeBC each offered $10,000 to aid the recovery effort - provisional on the engine actually being recovered.

The mini-sub company required the estimated cost for two days in advance ($25,000). This did not include the cost of the barge, at an additional $3,500/day. Some of the mini-sub companies' costs were reduced as BCFerries kindly donated ferry passage for the equipment, etc., possibly reducing cost by about $5,000. We also arranged for discounted accomodation at the Coast Discovery Inn and the Heriot Bay Inn, free dock loading from the Campbell River Indian Band and moorage at Heriot Bay, fed them on board, and cooked breakfast for themthe second and third days so we could get started before the restaurant opened.

On the first day, the manned mini-sub remained submerged for about five hours, but was unable to find the engine.

On the second day, (the 2nd anniversary of the crash) the manned mini-sub remained submerged for seven hours (apparently a world record), and did find the engine towards the end of the day. Because the engine is in a crater left by the weight and propulsion of the aircraft's descent, the deep ocean current has nearly covered the engine over with silt, excepting a small portion of the exhaust. As the mini-sub company did not come with any blower/vacuum equipment, he tried to knock the silt a little bit and got caught in the current. He could not find the engine again.

A third day was arranged. The manned min-sub remained submerged about six hours, and once again, could not find the engine.

Now, it isn't like we don't know where the engine is. In fact, this is the same company that retrieved the aircraft wreckage, so they should have known where the engine is. But the mini-sub company came without any kind of tracking device so they never knew where the sub actually was under the surface (they did have this equipment for the exploration of the Queen of the North wreckage). There is no video feed from the sub to the surface, unlike the small ROV operators we have used in the past. We knew where the engine was, but couldn't direct the sub without knowing where it was. They refused to allow us to drop any kind of marker, for concern that the sub would become tangled up.

So, needless to say, extremely disappointing - and a huge expense.

But don't fear - WE ARE NOT GIVING UP!

We will find someone to blow/vacuum the engine, and will not work in future with anyone who is unwilling to use a marker. This should not be a difficult operation.

[Edo]

Widow - thats encouraging and frustrating at the same time. I cant imagine how difficult this is for those involved. How deep is the water where the engine is ?

[Widow]

It's down about 830 feet.

[Widow]

Link to news reel from February 28, 2007.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRuNBwejeFo

[twotter]

Sorry to hear it's not going better for you widow..