Anyone know more about this??

[Proline]

http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=32341

[Donald]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-l ... alcomments

Labrador planes clip each other in air over Natuashish

Two small aircraft came into contact with each other Tuesday morning as they attempted to land in the northern Labrador community of Natuashish.

Both Twin Otter aircraft were able to land safely.

An investigation has started into the incident, and both planes remain in Natuashish.

The planes are owned by Innu Mikun Airlines and Air Labrador.

Bob Halliday, who speaks for Innu Mikun Airlines, said his company's plane was "struck from behind" by the Air Labrador plane as it approached the Natuashish airstrip around 9:45 a.m.

"The Innu Mikun aircraft completed its landing safely and there were no personal injuries," Halliday said in a statement. "All passengers are safe and being looked after at Natuashish."

Sam Mansfield, a passenger on the Innu Mikun plane, said he heard other passengers call out moments before the mid-air incident.

"They had seen the other aircraft, I guess, and I just looked out the window and caught a quick glimpse of the other aircraft and it struck our wing," he said.

The Innu Mikun flight carried 10 passengers and two crew members.

An official with Air Labrador said the incident involved a cargo plane.

Remote airstrips, like the one in Natuashish, do not have air traffic control towers, and pilots rely on communication between themselves when landing.

[twotterflyer]

Show me some pictures!!!

Good thing no one was injured!!!

Wonder if it was a communication issue?

No tower!

[VRC9170]

What does "No Tower!" have to do with it?
More than likely a vision failure!

[Rubberbiscuit]

Wow! Sounds like a few people are incredibly lucky to be a live! Mid-air incidents rarely have a happy ending.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Bob Halliday, who speaks for Innu Mikun Airlines, said his company's plane was "struck from behind" by the Air Labrador plane as it approached the Natuashish airstrip around 9:45 a.m.

How can that happen?

Must be just the media getting it wrong.

[Snagmaster E]

How can that happen? Descent on top of the other one. Hard to see when you can't see through your nose. He might have been in such a rate or angle of descent that he couldn't see it until it was too late. But who knows for sure?

[Max_Power]

Here's what the CADORS says about it.

A Labrador Airways DHC 6 300, landing at Natuashish (CNH2), contacted the upper wing surface aileron of a Provincial Airlines DHC 6 300 with its landing gear tire. The Provincial airlines aircraft that was also landing at Natuashish.. There was no damage to the Labrador Airways aircraft however the Provincial Airlines aircraft experienced damage to the aileron. There were no injuries and both aircraft landed safely in Natuashish. The weather at the time of the accident was clear VFR.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/Aviation/applicatio ... Position=8

[Donald]

If this is more than a class 5, I predict "failure of VFR see and be seen concept, combined with Newfie/English/French radio issues".

Then they will probably suggest: "Require 703/704 aircraft to have functioning TCAS"

[apilotguy]

Here's what the CADORS says about it.


Quote:
A Labrador Airways DHC 6 300, landing at Natuashish (CNH2), contacted the upper wing surface aileron of a Provincial Airlines DHC 6 300 with its landing gear tire. The Provincial airlines aircraft that was also landing at Natuashish.. There was no damage to the Labrador Airways aircraft however the Provincial Airlines aircraft experienced damage to the aileron. There were no injuries and both aircraft landed safely in Natuashish. The weather at the time of the accident was clear VFR.


http://www.tc.gc.ca/Aviation/applicatio ... Position=8

From what i can gather it was the left hand side of the horizontal stabilizer of the air labrador twin otter that hit the right hand aileron of the innu mikun twin otter, how they missed each others props or got tangled up in each other is beyond my compehension... congtats on the pilots who did a great job not letting this be ne worse then it is

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Bob Halliday, who speaks for Innu Mikun Airlines, said his company's plane was "struck from behind"

It was the wording that I was questioning.

How can that happen? Descent on top of the other one. Hard to see when you can't see through your nose. He might have been in such a rate or angle of descent that he couldn't see it until it was too late. But who knows for sure?

It did not say struck from above.

The bottom line is this was a very scary close call and there has to be something we can learn from this.

It could be a language problem that was the base cause as someone commented, if they were dealing with three languages it is possible that there was a mistake made as to who was where when.

In any case far to many of these close calls just get forgotten and nothing is learned about them until years later when maybe a statement is published.

It is not about assessing blame it is about learning from others mistakes.

[Rotten Apple #1]

Any fellas who've flown the Labrador (I'm not one) for PAL or Air Lab will tell ya it's not unheard of to fly 20 legs in a day. There's a lot of short hops across the bay or arm. Lots of get out, . the bag, dump the pax, get back in and let's go.

By's are in a hurry...(and probably tired)...figger it out...

And those two outfits are talkin' the same language, whatever anyone calls it.

Just another day on the coast.

Jonny

[Snagmaster E]

Donald:

I simply hate comments about language when people think that Newfoundlander's speak something other than English. It's the same language. People from other parts of the country speak perfect English? There is slang in every English speaking part of the world. It's like saying that Acadian French is not real French, as compared to Quebec French or France French. English is English. French is French. Slang is slang.



Johnny, I fly through Labrador and you said it perfectly. Busy busy days up there.

., I wasn't saying that it did happen that way, just that it could happen that way. I haven't heard the details yet, but I'm trying to find out.

[imarai]

As there was no cockpit voice recorders, nor any ground-based recordings, it is unlikely we will ever know what exactly was or wasn't said.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Snagmaster, no problem.

The real issue as I see it is this was a very serious incident and the paying passengers and other crews should know what caused two airplanes to hit each other during the approach phase of a landing.

[Rotten Apple #1]

I flew the Quebec lower north shore for a couple of years (Sept Iles to Blanc Sablon and all the hot spots in between) with the odd trip over to the Labrador strips.

I'd be the first to admit that a lot of the stuff that went on wasn't exactly the high point of my career, but then I wasn't the high falutin' tie wearin' professional airline pilot like I am now (tongue firmly you know where).

They can spend the time and money and do an investigation and publish a report and even change regulations if they want to. Point is, it's all uncontrolled, you survive long term cause you learn from others and your own mistakes, and once in a while follow the regulations to the 'T'. And guys will still end up flyin' 120+ hours/month for months on end, and they'll continue to deal with shit that I don't have to anymore cause they're working for a living (like opening hangar doors at 2:00 am in -30 degree weather or tryin' to see the road through the blizzard on the way home from the airport), while I'm struttin' through terminal 3 with a Starbucks and the Globe and Mail in hand.

Shit happens.

[Donald]

snagmaster: My comment wasn't meant to offend, it was more tongue in cheek, I just didn't bother with a smiley. Newfie's are some of the best people on the planet, in my opinion. I was merely pointing out that either: No radio call was made, or a call was mis-understood for whatever reason. And that, someone definitely wasn't looking out the window when they should have.

"Shit happens" is not a valid excuse. Sorry "shit" doesn't just happen. 99% of the time "shit" happens, cause someone screwed up.

I understand busy days/weeks/months, especially with regards to twin otter operators. Also, in my opinion, not a valid excuse. Fatigued? Call it a day. What's the point of doing the job, if you are so burned out you can't fly a circuit safely?

Maybe it's time to consider revoking the 7F twin otter clause from the CARS?

[hoghead]

CARS gives NO protection to pilots in terms of duty day, daily, monthly, quartly and yearly hours flown. Canada has the most abusive limits. Places like South Africa, UAE, Russia and everywhere else I have any reference to do not allow more than 900 hrs in a 365 day, I think the US might be 1000hrs.

Those guys/gals are fatigued, simple as that, there is no protection for them. TC will never acknowledge any real problems that might make them look liable, even if its in the name of safety.

Those hourly limits go back to 40's when aircraft were slower, less reliable and facilities were more remote. They are a joke now and are managed by a bunch of farts trying to eek out a pension (regulatory people not checkers that is..).

That could have happened to any of us and I am sure there are a few who have come very close. Shit does happen, especially when you are exhausted.

If you say it doesnt, then you are a walking, talking, flying shit bomb..Rickey. Nothing personal to anyone but there is always some threat out there, try to stay safe.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

CARS gives NO protection to pilots in terms of duty day, daily, monthly, quartly and yearly hours flown. Canada has the most abusive limits. Places like South Africa, UAE, Russia and everywhere else I have any reference to do not allow more than 900 hrs in a 365 day, I think the US might be 1000hrs.

Not according to Merlin Preuss who states clearly that Canada is a world leader in safety.

You must be confused hoghead or maybe a little tired and not thinking clearly?

I'm at a bit of a disadvantage trying to understand how Canada does things with regard to safety issues. I never once was taught that " shit happens " was part of CRM and PDM but maybe having flown outside Canada for so long I missed that get out of jail free card . For sure we did not teach that in Europe.

[Rotten Apple #1]

., there's probably a lot of things you didn't 'see' in Europe (vice 'get taught').

And in the remote parts of this vast land that is Canada, there's a lot of things that have/do/will occur that would not be tolerated down south (or within 100 miles of a Tim Horton's, same thing).

Call it culture, call it unsupervised behaviour, call it what you will. The people (native/non-native, english speaking/french speaking) who inhabit these little outposts of humanity are quite versed in the risks of living there, whether it be by land, sea, or air. It's part of life, as much as people from afar might not like it (or the loved ones, when things turn tragic) or understand it.

Does it excuse unprofessional behaviour? Nope. But shit is gonna happen.

I remember being shocked when I first went up there seeing 6 year old kids flying past me on snow machines (skidoos, sleds) without helmets. Shocking. Then you get used to it. Is it right? Probably not.

Anyway, off to drive my kid to shool.

Cheers

[Chuck Ellsworth]

By's are in a hurry...(and probably tired)...figger it out...

If these guys were tired at 9:45 AM flying in VFR conditions maybe it was fortunate they hit each other and could call it a day before they really fu.ked up due to exhaustion flying in that remote part of the universe?

[Rowdy]

Who's to say the day prior wasn't a "14hr" duty day with the minimum reset afterwards for the 5th consecutive day? That'll tire you out on the otter for sure!

Also from the sounds of it the left aileron was struck by the right main gear. Perhaps the skipper was flying and FO spotted other otter a bit late? Lots of possibilities right.

We weren't there, we don't know the full story, and probably never will. The folk flying had a VERY close call, either got lucky or fate was on their side or reacted quickly enough at the last minute to avoid complete disaster.

I'm pretty sure it brings up a good point to everyone. Keep vigilant eyes out the window, head on a swivel, and When flyin in uncontrolled, Make sure the radio gets used properly!!

It also begs the question as to why the machines that need TCAS the most don't have it. Aircraft flying into relatively busy northern uncontrolled airports in "VFR" conditions.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Rowdy, obviously you missed the point I was trying to make.

If they were tired enough at 9:45 AM to be a factor in their ability to fly there has to be a reason.

It is a foregone conclusion that in many cases pilots are flying when they are suffering from chronic exhaustion brought on by long duty days.

The issue here is not the fact these people had a very close call the issue is what can be done to make the industry safer.

What will bring about changes to these draconian time frames that are approved by the regulator, one death, one hundred deaths, one thousand deaths?

Forgive me for being naive and simple minded but should not the paying public be ensured the same level of safety when flying on charter / sched light to medium aircraft as they expect and get on the larger airlines?

[Rotten Apple #1]

., you are being naïve to expect the same level of safety. Sorry to have to state it so clearly for you.

Lots of times up there you are faced with the decision of VFR in a couple of miles of vis, under a low ceiling, for a trip of an hour or so, versus filing IFR and facing a MDA that isn't near enough to get you in. What d'ya think you end up doing?

I got a whole lot of scenarios like that, that illustrate tough decisions that pilots have to make up there. It's character builiding, and it ain't for everybody. It certainly does lead to a certain flexibility with interpretations of regulations. You just bank on self preservation winning out and everyone arrives alive as a result.

Often times the decision to file VFR versus IFR was based on how much fuel you could carry, as opposed to weather conditions enroute.

Often times the decision to carry an F/O was based on whether the seat was needed for a passenger (we're talking a Navajo).

Are these considerations the same as what would be faced in an airline situation? No. But when you're faced with a shrimp boat crew (the shellfish) and they've been away for three weeks and they got a pocket full of dough and they want to get home ASAP, regulations sometimes get ditched, and pilot experience/judgement takes over (far from the prying eyes of TC).

Don't know what exactly happened with the incident in question. I do know a little bit about politics in the past (between these two outfits) and I know a little bit about life up there.

Unless you do, you're talkin' out of yer hat, and while it might seem logical and ethical, it ain't much applicable.

Shit happens; you just hope it isn't to you.

Jonny

[Chuck Ellsworth]

., you are being naïve to expect the same level of safety. Sorry to have to state it so clearly for you.

O.K. I'm naive.

Just to clear something up jonny I spent many years flying in that environment and I I am oh to well aware that the culture hasen't changed with your generation, because we had to many of the same mentality flying then as now.

However many of us did it safely and got the job done by knowing what not to do.

But I guess I'm expecting to much to think that with an improvement in the culture of " get er done at any cost " things would be better.

Sorry to have to state it so clearly for you.

No need to apoloigize as I was probably flying in those areas before you were born and I am well aware of the " shit happens " cult. I'm just not a convert.