W-Five

[Ali G]

"we have enough information". What a f%&$$& asshole. You know, what if it was his brother/sister/father?

"human performance", blah blah.

My condolences, no dry eyes here.

Good luck Widow, and all the families.

[Bushav8er]

NTSB Mandate


Heading Graphic
Horizontal Line

The Canadian Transportation Investigation and Safety Board Act provides the legal framework that governs TSB activities. Our mandate is to advance transportation safety in the marine, pipeline, rail and air modes of transportation by

* conducting independent investigations, including public inquiries when necessary, into selected transportation occurrences in order to make findings as to their causes and contributing factors;
* identifying safety deficiencies, as evidenced by transportation occurrences;
* making recommendations designed to eliminate or reduce any such safety deficiencies; and
* reporting publicly on our investigations and on the findings in relation thereto.

As part of its ongoing investigations, the TSB also reviews developments in transportation safety and identifies safety risks that it believes government and the transportation industry should address to reduce injury and loss.

To instill confidence in the public regarding the transportation accident investigation process, it is essential that an investigating agency be independent and free from any conflicts of interest when investigating accidents, identifying safety deficiencies, and making safety recommendations. As such, the TSB is an independent agency, separate from other government agencies and departments, that reports to Parliament through the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada. Our independence enables us to be fully objective in making findings as to causes and contributing factors, and in making transportation safety recommendations.

In making its findings as to the causes and contributing factors of a transportation occurrence, it is not the function of the Board to assign fault or determine civil or criminal liability. However, the Board does not refrain from fully reporting on the causes and contributing factors merely because fault or liability might be inferred from the Board’s findings. No finding of the Board should be construed as assigning fault or determining civil or criminal liability. Findings of the Board are not binding on the parties to any legal, disciplinary, or other proceedings.

Yeah...ok

Widow - you have a Trust Fund set up? I'm sure that we pilots would contribute to a 'recovery fund' - where do I send the cheque?

Isn't it about time that TC stopped talking 'safety' and really started acting? The CARS (regulations) are sold as promoting safety but are really rules set up by Industry to allow them to make a profit while making it look like safety is the guideline. Need an example - take a look at Flight Duty Times; can anyone other than TC, for charging purposes, understand them??

Why is it that a Commuter/airline pilot, making the 'big bucks', that lifts no more than his flight bag and a coffee and monitors a computer, has 2 sets of eyes, hands and brains, gets 'fatigued' in 40 hrs a week but an Air Taxi pilot that lifts and loads everything, and manually flies single pilot IFR only gets 'fatigued' after 60 hrs a week?? (Unions I know)

"Everyone is equal but some are more 'equal' than others"

The Air Taxi side is were the accidents are; isn't it time for either new regs or for them to be part of the same union?

Really Widow - where do we send the money?

[Fatass]

Widow, if funding is one of the ingredients to the recipe of getting this engine up, say the word. Post the address to mail to and the name you would like the cheques made out to. I'm sure after people have read your website or seen the W5 episode they would be willing to contribute to the cause.
I'll start.

$100.00

Yearwood is full of B.S. to claim an engine failure or malfunction was impossible. A partial power failure would keep a prop spinning, and I admit I know little about the R-985 engine, but I would assume airflow alone could be enough to windmill the propeller while gliding, possibly resulting in the prop damage to the float. He's also either ignoring the fact that the windscreen was covered in oil or he's never been behind the controls of an aircraft with an obscured windscreen. It seems to me he was suggesting even if the engine failure and oil on the windscreen scenario did exits that Arnie Feasts job should have been a walk in the park.

Let's pull together, the proof is 800 feet deep.

[Widow]

Donations to offset the heavy costs borne by the families will be gratefully accepted by:

TD Canada Trust, 1400 Island Highway

Campbell River, BC

Transit # 9038; Acct #6259768

"Allison Decock In Trust"



You should be able to go to any TD Canada Trust and ask them to make a deposit to this transit/account information.

[Rowdy]

Count me down too. I'll match fatass's 100..

Who else?

[Fatass]

I'll do it.

[Pete]

Hazatude has a good idea in the other forum,

If you stick that on youtube (W5 report) or some sort, and get your web-site link in too...Im sure that will help the cause that much more. Im heading to the bank monday for sure.

[Icebound]

Hazatude has a good idea in the other forum,

If you stick that on youtube (W5 report)

no need. The full W5 segment is available on the CTV site.

[snaproll20]

I have seen TSB do some pretty amazing things in investigation and they have always had my respect.
However, Bill Yearwood's statement (if I remember rightly) was "An engine failure shouldn't cause an aircraft to go down." Er, William, it was a single engine plane versus gravity...... ..... and numerous people here have testified that landing a floatplane with a dead engine is a great challenge.

He also commented on "human mistakes", or some such thing (sorry, I was not taking notes), which strongly suggests that "pilot error" is the choice here. The expert hired by the families disagrees.

The fact that all five seats were empty raises huge questions about survivability and the need for faster response when an aircraft's safety is even suspected to be in danger. Was there no ELT? Did the charter company have a policy that nobody could board a floatplane unless they wore a life jacket? Why are these floatation devices not fitted with some form of personal ELT?

A few years ago, I "invented" a GPS system attached to an emergency beacon that would transmit to the SARSAT the coordinates of a crashed aircraft on impact. Days later I read the technology was already available and going into production. Surely, this should be a mandatory item on aircraft operating in wilderness areas or in poor communication areas so that rescue efforts could be launched immediately.

You would think that TCCA would be all over that as a means to supporting safety, but apparently, they have different agendas. The reporter stated that a dozen aircraft are lost on the West coast annually. If so, where is the protection for the one happening next month?

The whole ELT business, right from its implementation back in the 1970s has been a joke. Put them in....Take them out........The batteries don't work, take them out. etc etc. Could we get a policy, please?

In the families' quest, Widow has unearthed numerous promises by TCCA about improving certain things, hollow promises that have not been implemented, years later. She has posted them here, educating many of us to the shortcomings.

Hollow promises..............was it just coincidence that the incident shared time on W5 with a segment on crooked car dealers????????????

My cheque is in the mail.

[Youngback]

Widow, If you don't mind me asking, what is the estimated price to bring the engine up. I'll definetley help out. You've done a lot for us.

Aaron

[CD]

A few years ago, I "invented" a GPS system attached to an emergency beacon that would transmit to the SARSAT the coordinates of a crashed aircraft on impact. Days later I read the technology was already available and going into production. Surely, this should be a mandatory item on aircraft operating in wilderness areas or in poor communication areas so that rescue efforts could be launched immediately.

This has been disussed on the forum before and I agree with you but there are many in this great country (and on Avcanada as well) that do not agree...

COPA opposes mandatory 406 MHZ ELTs

[snaproll20]

Tks, CD.

What price human life?

[Widow]

Bill Yearwood

Even if there was an engine malfunction, it doesn't make the aircraft uncontrollable. It shouldn't cause the accident...Historically, engine failures don't cause accidents like this.

and

We have enough information to tell us that the engine was operating at the time of impact.

Our Reply:

What about the oil spray (the TSB maintains the oil came after the crash - as oil was leaking after recovery)?

What about the witnesses?

Kevin Decock

People from one side of the bay to the other having the same accounts, the engine sounding worse and worse and worse. Where one witness actually heard the airplane for 45 seconds coughing, sputtering and then impact the water ...

Jim Hayton (Beaver expert, doing wreck rebuilds since the 60's)

I say the TSB is the one with the inexperience.

Oh and I love this from the Ops Manager -


Jim Hartwell

I was busy. I came down and flew that plane...

Ya he got back from his doctors appt to find the dispatcher didn't know where the plane was, told her to "make the calls" and went up "to look" - or pick up passengers and return three hours later - after SAR had been called. He told us (I recorded the conversation) that he meant for her to call SAR ... if she was so well trained, how come she didn't know that???

So, how much will it cost to bring the engine up? Well, it depends on all kinds of factors - but if we can do it the way we believe we can, it should be between $20-30,000 - assuming we can count on some of the same volunteers. We believe it can be done using a small ROV (like the Phantom we used to find the engine) and a firehose (to blow the silt away).

[oldenoughtoknowbetter]

I had a very similar looking windscreen in a fully loaded -2. Analysis post incident revealed a "baby finger" size hole had develpoed on top of a piston, pressurizing the crankcase forcing all the oil out around the prop shaft and subsequently covering the windscreen.

Enough power remained for me too stabilize level flight, half mile circling approach back to where I knew I had a chance of paddling to a dock all the while NEVER leaving the shoreline and access to a landing site.

Landed without incident using about 2 inches of vis out the lower left corner of the windscreen.

It is possible to have a partial and a prop turning in the 985. That said, what was with the witness comment near the start ....."and then it disappeared into the fog" - what's up with that??

[Widow]

Another comment - W-Five erred in saying that the prop hole in the float is what caused the plane to sink so quickly. This is from a report by our American expert (not afraid of TC) to the RCMP. I would be happy to post Mr. Hayton's curriculum vitae, for those of you in doubt as to his authority/expertise.

Float Observations/lssues

In conjunction with Transportation Safety Board of Canada Senior Air Investigator W.R. (Bill) Kemp in November 2006, and Transport Canada (Safety) Inspectors Mr. Norm Chalmers and Mr. Murray Nelson in early December 2006, I again thoroughly examined both floats off Beaver C-GAQW complete with all their attachment hardware, struts, etc. which connect the floats to the aircraft itself. I found the followinq:

a) The aft ends of both floats have almost identical upward deformation of the bottom skins surfaces, indicating that the aircraft was descending at high rate and in a tail low and wings level condition, immediately prior to landing on the water.

b) Each float is divided into five compartments with sealed water-tight bulkheads separating the compartments. Each compartment has a hatch cover which is attached with approximately 57 10/32" machine screws and their associated internal nutplates. The removal of these covers allows access to the compartments for inspection and maintenance. These hatch covers are supposed to be sealed after each removal, since without the sealer rainwater would enter the floats from above under normal conditions, and if the floats were partially submerged (in an accident situation, for instance) water would pour into the compartment and the plane would rapidly sink. In our case, we found numerous screws missing on many of the hatch covers, due to missing or rusted-out nutplates. The resulting holes were not plugged.

The three center compartments on the left-hand float had recently been opened up with the covers cleaned and freshly painted with Super Koropon epoxy/chromate primer, and with new repairs to the bottom skins in these areas. (Incidentally, we water-tested these fresh repairs to the bottom skins, and found all to slowly leak). None of these covers had any sealer applied since the fresh reprime. The type of primer on the covers was the same as that on the new bottom repairs. All the remaining hatch covers on both floats had old, cracked sealer installed. Water leakage past these seals was evident in several areas. It also appeared that some of the hatch covers had been removed and reinstalled without removing the old sealer and installing new. (None of these covers had been removed post accident and before the above-mentioned inspection). I also noted several areas where water had been leaking past the bulkheads previous to the accident. This is shown by watermarks on both sides of the bulkhead in question. Thus, if one compartment is breached to the outside, you lose two or more compartments.

c) There were several unauthorized repairs to both floats; mainly to the deck coamings. These are the structural longitudinal fore-aft members, which form the upper inboard and outboard corners where the side skins meet the top skins. The float manufacturer allows no repairs to these members, nor is there any Federal Aviation Administration or Transport Canada approved repair. In our case, numerous repairs had been made to these members. On the right-hand float (the most badly damaged float), failures occurred in these repaired areas, definitely influencing the extent of damage to the right-hand float which occurred in the area where the front strut and spreader bar attach to the float. On the 4580 float, which was the type on C-GAQW, this attachment area is in the middle of a compartment area and not near a bulkhead. Thus, the integrity of all other members is extremely important. In our case, with numerous unapproved repairs evident in this area, the float was structurally weakened which significantly contributed to the extent of damage to the right-hand float.

d) Non-aviation approved silicone sealer was found in the badly damaged area of the right-hand float shortly after the floats were originally recovered from the ocean's floor. To me, this indicates that the right-hand float had been leaking at some previous time, and that an attempt to make a temporary repair had been made. Because of the extensive structural damage to this float in this area, I do not think it possible to determine the total influence this sealer may have had in this accident. Corrosion occurs in the area where silicone is applied next to aluminum, but it appeared to me that the failure in this compartment started in areas other than where the silicone was found.

e) The front approximately 10" of the right-hand float has been chopped off and is still missing. It appears that the aircraft's turning propeller was the chopping method. Minor smoke and fire damage were also observed in this area.

f) There did not appear to be any pre-impact damage to any of the float attach structures.

Float Discrepancies and Failure Conclusions:

a) Unapproved (old) float deck rail coaming repairs influenced the extent of damage the right-hand float sustained in the accident. This significantly influenced the time Beaver C-GAQW stayed on the surface before sinking.

b) The quantity of missing hatch cover screws and resulting holes, total lack of sealer under the three center compartment hatch covers of the left hand float, as well as a lack of good sealer under the remainder of the hatch covers on the both floats, contributed to a large extent in how fast Beaver C-GAQW sank after hitting the water surface. Had the sealer been there properly, (taking into consideration the structural damage to the floats) the aircraft probably would have stayed at the surface for at least 1 hour, thus providing a place for the occupants to get out of the cold water and rest, and a place to stand on while attracting attention for rescue. I base this judgment on two other accidents involving Beaver float planes which suffered similar float damage and which I now own. these two examples are cited below.

• 1. Beaver C-FOBZ crashed 10-13-2000 with the damage to both floats very close to that of Beaver C-GAQW and which floated at least twelve hours. This allowed the occupants to be safely rescued by standing/sitting on the overturned floats and yelling for attention.
  2. Beaver C-FQHT also crashed May 18, 2004 with the float damage to both floats being as great as, if not worse than those of Beaver C-GAQW. In this case, the floats supported the plane on the surface for at least twenty-four hours. It was still floating when found and recovered.

Additional Background Information Regarding the Floats

In the fall of 2003 and early spring of 2004, Jim Hartwell (MJM Air General Manager and Chief Pilot) contacted me regarding leasing a pair of Beaver floats from me for use on Beaver C-GAQW. He told me that the Beaver C-GAQW floats were leaking badly, needed new bottom skins, corrosion control and repainting, etc. He estimated that the float repairs would take from two to three months, so that is how long he would need to use mine. I quoted him a price of $3,000 U.S. D. for that 3-month float lease, but he later told me the MJM Air owner would not pay that kind of price.

*** (edited)

In fall of 2004 Mr. Hartwell again contacted me regarding the lease of some Beaver floats. I was surprised that they had not repaired the floats the previous year and told him so. He told me that the MJM Air owner refused to spend the money, but that now the floats were leaking so badly that it had to happen. I again offered Mr. Hartwell the same deal as the previous year - he told me he would get back with me. He contacted me again in early January 2005, this time wanting to lease a complete Beaver with floats since Beaver C-GAQW needed an engine change and other work. We agreed to meet in Campbell River about the middle of January 2005 and discuss the matter further. I was in Campbell River on 1-16-2005 and spoke with a MJM Air pilot who told me Mr. Hartwell was not available. I looked over the MJM Air operation and Beaver C-GAQW including its rough running engine, oil streaks down the right-hand side of the fuselage, and overall poor condition. I made up my mind right then that I did not want to lease one of my planes to MJM Air.

Mr. Hartwell never did contact me again and I do not know if the floats were worked on following the last conversation Mr. Hartwell and I had in early January 05 and before the accident of February 28, 2005. However, it is clear from looking at the floats now, that some work had been recently accomplished, including corrosion-control and reprime, and bottom patch type repairs to the lefthand float.

[altiplano]

So, how much will it cost to bring the engine up? Well, it depends on all kinds of factors - but if we can do it the way we believe we can, it should be between $20-30,000 - assuming we can count on some of the same volunteers. We believe it can be done using a small ROV (like the Phantom we used to find the engine) and a firehose (to blow the silt away).

Have you contacted Phil Nuytten in North Van?

Maybe he could work out a deal for your cause in getting the machine up...

http://www.nuytco.com/contact/index.shtml

[Widow]

Nuytco is the company that raised the plane, and made the last failed attempt to lift the engine. You can read how I felt about that here: http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopic.php?t=19069

[mayfleur]

If people heard the engine fail and cries for help then why didn't they do anything about it?
Widow, that must be absolutely heartbreaking.

[altiplano]

It's too bad that it didn't work out with Nuytco for you...

For what it's worth though Phil is THE man in the submersible field - any reason they won't send a manned submersible? Or is it just expense?

[C-FABH]

If people heard the engine fail and cries for help then why didn't they do anything about it?

Perhaps the most disturbing highlight I've read about the accident, even more-so than any possible shoddy maintenance, poor management, or uncooperative authorities.

[CID]

It's nice to see so much interest in widow's cause to raise the engine. If nothing else it will bring closure to at least one more aspect of this tragedy and possibly opent the way for further litigation etc. Its not so nice (but understandable) to see emotions overtake logic.

What price human life?

First of all, if you're suggesting that we force everyone including VFR 703 operators with state of the art "everything" you might as well shut them all down as nobody will be able to afford to operate. We need to balance the cost of things with the benefits.

Second, if you think that ELTs are a saftey device, think again. It's a crash recovery device. You can equip the airplane with the biggest best ELT in the world but the main focus must remain on accident prevention rather than accident recovery.

[Wixel Pimp]

What price human life?

First of all, if you're suggesting that we force everyone including VFR 703 operators with state of the art "everything" you might as well shut them all down as nobody will be able to afford to operate. We need to balance the cost of things with the benefits.

Second, if you think that ELTs are a saftey device, think again. It's a crash recovery device. You can equip the airplane with the biggest best ELT in the world but the main focus must remain on accident prevention rather than accident recovery.[/quote]


WELL SAID....finally a realistic comment.

[Widow]

And what about the people who survived the accident? A functioning ELT may have saved my husband's life as much as airworthy floats, active flight following or a call from a witness. Without an ELT, how long would it have been until Rowdy was found? Or would it have been too late for him too?

Functioning ELT's are vital to safety. They are not just for locating the wreck - but saving lives.

[sky's the limit]

Second, if you think that ELTs are a saftey device, think again. It's a crash recovery device. You can equip the airplane with the biggest best ELT in the world but the main focus must remain on accident prevention rather than accident recovery.

PARDON?

Do you actually fly for a living?

If I'm a crash survivor, that little piece of equipment can/and does make a HUGE difference in weather I survive or not.

Of course crash prevention is very important, but there will ALWAYS be accidents, and doing the best we can to maximize the survivability of the crash, and the post crash scenarios is vital. At least it is to me.

stl

PS, count me in on the donation Widow.

[twotter]

Second, if you think that ELTs are a saftey device, think again. It's a crash recovery device. You can equip the airplane with the biggest best ELT in the world but the main focus must remain on accident prevention rather than accident recovery.

PARDON?

Do you actually fly for a living?

If I'm a crash survivor, that little piece of equipment can/and does make a HUGE difference in weather I survive or not.

Of course crash prevention is very important, but there will ALWAYS be accidents, and doing the best we can to maximize the survivability of the crash, and the post crash scenarios is vital. At least it is to me.

stl

PS, count me in on the donation Widow.

STL..

I think this is where most are wrong when it comes to the person involved here (CID) there is no way this person is involved in aviation if this is his/her opinion. It's a simple way of trying to hijack a perfectly good thread and make it their own..

And Kirsten, I've not only forwarded the W5 thread to many, but I'll be at the bank tomorrow myself..

Good luck and here's to getting that engine up..