I find it ironic (if not insulting) that almost to the day that the TSB report on the Seair seaplane crash is published, Transport Canada is in the process of finalizing the sale of their Cessna 206 amphib (based in Vancouver) which is used by TC’s inspectors to cover the vast area of the BC coastline. The TSB report is graphic and very sad.

I guess they'll have to 'drive' to the seaplane operators of the country now. That's just great. Have a look at that optic if you will.

I'm glad that the TSB is "encouraged" by the work TC has put in 'since' this unfortunate incident. I wonder what the TSB would say when asked what they thought about the regulator not being able to regulate a rather large (and high profile) element of the aviation industry in Canada. Wait, who says they can't? Anyone? Buhler?

I wonder what Larry Pynn would think. His newspaper series "Broken Wings" spelled it out; it aint a pretty picture. I wonder what the widow would say?

Or, does anyone care? Can TC regulate (and ensure seaplane safety) at arms' length? Maybe they can. I have a good friend at 800 Burrard that is embarrassed by the government's sale of a dozen aircraft, (the amphib 206 included). I attempt to reason with him that it's all part of fiscal restraint, it is, in fact, the new age of reduced spending after all. He quietly points out however, that it's been less than a year since (then Minister of Transport) John Baird took it upon himself to stand up in parliament and advise all present that it was time to let the Canadian public know that "we need to take seaplane safety seriously."

That statement, on the heals of two seaplane crashes (same type, same company) on the west coast, was enough for the Minister to light a fire under the managers at TC, to get out there and take a close look at seaplane operators, to talk to them, to see what is working and what is not.

My friend tells me, many of the operators he visits are glad to see the Transport flag being waved. He also suggests that there are many operators who remain skeptical of TC’s involvement in anything resembling regulatory function. And he doesn't take it personally, he expects it really. Certain departments at TC, apparently, are just as frustrated as the public, in being given a short leash on applying their trade, either by managers that don't want to rock the boat or, he says, by regulations that are poorly written by policy makers in Ottawa which might as well be Moon Base Alpha when it comes to overseeing seaplane operations on the west coast.

Anyhow, now it seems that seaplane safety has taken a backseat once again. Until the next white elephant rears its ugly head maybe? Maybe. But maybe TC doesn't need a floatplane anyway. Maybe they are doing all they can with the tools they have in place. Maybe the seaplane pamphlets and brochures and posters and occasional visit by auto are enough. But somehow, my ten plus years of coastal flying tells me that I'm apt to chuckle at the inspector that shows up on my dock in a Smart Car with TC decals. Not sure how much respect I have for that.

Maybe I have no right to be insulted. Maybe it's just a matter of it is what it is. Having reviewed this post, I think it's just a tad illogical of TC to get rid of their floatplane. Not that much logic applies at TC anyway. But hey, maybe the floatplane 'issue' will work itself out.

Send that to the Vancouver Sun as a guest editorial. Betcha it gets printed.

Great post!

Anybody have the link to that accident report?
Much appreciated!

Loss of Control – Collision with Water Seair Seaplanes Ltd. de Havilland DHC-2 (Beaver), C‑GTMC Lyall Harbour, Saturna Island, British Columbia, 29 November 2009

Also discussed in the following threads:

AvCanada: TSB Report on Lyall Harbour Beaver Accident
AvCanada: Beaver down off Saturna island (Updates)

Thanks CD --

Part of the problem with float planes, especially on the coast, is that you need to fly them regularly and you need to talk to other pilots that fly them regularly as well, otherwise it is just too dangerous/risky to try and go all the places on the coast that the 'regular' operators go. TC cannot do that as their pilots are bureaucrats first and float pilots a distant second. To add to the mix, the amphib 206 is very limited in where it can go on the coast, its probably the worst "bush" plane they could have chosen and historically, TC has probably contributed disproportionately to the float plane accident rate all by itself. Stories, approaching the level of legends, are told all over the coast about the exploits of TC pilots.

The reason for this is they do not fly enough, every time they launch they are not current nor have they been able to BS with the locals about how to get into somewhere in a Westerly, or a falling tide or whatever.

I think the industry will be a lot safer if you keep TC out of the air - optics notwithstanding. How you will get new recruits for inspector positions if you won't let them fly becomes a problem.

Reminds me of the days when our revolver club would invite the local police to a falling pin match. One cop actually had rust on his .38 when he drew it out of the holster. Could TC buy a proper bush plane and pay an inspectors salary to employ a float pilot to ferry them about...or would that generate even less respect than the smart car

The scariest/sketchiest take off I've ever witnessed from our location was that TC 206.

Terrible decision making, terrible technique, totally out of control, the airplane flying him, just barely missed clipping power lines and dipping the downwind wing, (why he chose the 90 degree crosswind into a mountain and power lines when he could have taken off into wind with no obstacles??? WTF), just BRUTAL.

Perhaps selling it is one of the smarter decisions they've ever made? (Not for doing their job but for saving lives...)