[url=https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-ne ... -36-st-n-e]https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-ne ... -36-st-n-e[/url]
Shocked! no no I am not...............................
Plane that landed on Calgary street had enough fuel to reach airport
-
Chuck Ellsworth
[quote]Forgot to switch tanks?[/quote]
It goes beyond forgot.
It was criminal stupidity.
It goes beyond forgot.
It was criminal stupidity.
-
Trey Kule
- Posts: 250
- Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 4:19 am
A 9500 hour pilot that could not manage the fuel on a Navajo....
Did I get it correctly....they are/ were at the time...a class 1 instructor!
Let me be the first to say it....good job
I bet their training records were impeccable.....just like their “training†SoPs......which were apparently developed by someone who also did not know how to manage fuel in a Navajo.
This accident was so close to being a tragedy that I hope somebody from TC does something about this company....
Did I get it correctly....they are/ were at the time...a class 1 instructor!
Let me be the first to say it....good job
I bet their training records were impeccable.....just like their “training†SoPs......which were apparently developed by someone who also did not know how to manage fuel in a Navajo.
This accident was so close to being a tragedy that I hope somebody from TC does something about this company....
-
Eric Janson
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2015 10:31 am
There is some discussion on the other site about how this wasn't on their checklist.
Apparently it's an item in the aircraft flight manual.
Talk the this oversight wasn't picked up by Transport Canada when the Ops manual was approved.
Some lawsuits coming I would imagine....
Apparently it's an item in the aircraft flight manual.
Talk the this oversight wasn't picked up by Transport Canada when the Ops manual was approved.
Some lawsuits coming I would imagine....
-
Slick Goodlin
- Posts: 721
- Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 6:46 pm
[quote author=Eric Janson link=topic=8859.msg24316#msg24316 date=1534065237]
There is some discussion on the other site about how this wasn't on their checklist
[/quote]
The impression I got from the report was that cause checks (fuel, mags, whatever else) are on their Engine Failure checklist but were skipped, either because they were in a rush or because the airport was right there so perhaps the thought was to just secure it and land. The report mentions the operator has published “rough running engine†checks now, which don’t really have any relevance to the accident flight but will help keep TC off their backs.
There is some discussion on the other site about how this wasn't on their checklist
[/quote]
The impression I got from the report was that cause checks (fuel, mags, whatever else) are on their Engine Failure checklist but were skipped, either because they were in a rush or because the airport was right there so perhaps the thought was to just secure it and land. The report mentions the operator has published “rough running engine†checks now, which don’t really have any relevance to the accident flight but will help keep TC off their backs.
-
David MacRay
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 3:00 pm
I don't know how to word this. I'll try.
Managing fuel is not covered by [u]standard operating procedures [/u]?
Managing fuel is not covered by [u]standard operating procedures [/u]?
-
Trey Kule
- Posts: 250
- Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 4:19 am
Managing fuel is covered in the POH.
And should have been covered in their training. It is a rather critical item.
The whole SOP issue is , or should be separate. The Capt screwed up. The FO seemed to be nothing more than dead weight . The SOPs were a joke.( although one apparently approved by TC...)
The SOPs , in this case for two crew, are developed by the company management, or more correctly, are the responsability of company management.
Unfortunately, in smaller companies the SOPs are developed based on a sometimes flawed idea of what SOPs actually are, and by people who lack the technical knowledge.
I have seen SOPs at FTUs and small operators that are laughable...well actually really very sad.
This whole TSB report appears to be trying to deflect the PIC’s responsability for some reason. Perhaps because it was such a gross failure on their part and a total breakdown on two crew CRM, and TSB wants the company to shoulder the responsability.
The sense I get , correct or not, is of a high time , instructor who was out of their depth with this rather nice little twin, and a company which lacked depth in management experience.
The issue of TCs approval of the SOP is an interesting one. TC, more than any other regulator, bar none, wants to approve everything. It seems to me if you demand that everything be approved, you then take responsability for it being correct...a lawsuit might just smarten TC up. Their approval here was of absolutely no value...
And should have been covered in their training. It is a rather critical item.
The whole SOP issue is , or should be separate. The Capt screwed up. The FO seemed to be nothing more than dead weight . The SOPs were a joke.( although one apparently approved by TC...)
The SOPs , in this case for two crew, are developed by the company management, or more correctly, are the responsability of company management.
Unfortunately, in smaller companies the SOPs are developed based on a sometimes flawed idea of what SOPs actually are, and by people who lack the technical knowledge.
I have seen SOPs at FTUs and small operators that are laughable...well actually really very sad.
This whole TSB report appears to be trying to deflect the PIC’s responsability for some reason. Perhaps because it was such a gross failure on their part and a total breakdown on two crew CRM, and TSB wants the company to shoulder the responsability.
The sense I get , correct or not, is of a high time , instructor who was out of their depth with this rather nice little twin, and a company which lacked depth in management experience.
The issue of TCs approval of the SOP is an interesting one. TC, more than any other regulator, bar none, wants to approve everything. It seems to me if you demand that everything be approved, you then take responsability for it being correct...a lawsuit might just smarten TC up. Their approval here was of absolutely no value...
-
Chuck Ellsworth
Once again allow me to sum it up.
[quote]
[font=verdana]It goes beyond forgot.[/font][font=verdana]It was criminal stupidity.[/font][/quote][font=verdana]
The pilots the company and T.C. are incompetent and what is needed is for all of them to be sued in civil court for gross incompetence.[/font]
[quote]
[font=verdana]It goes beyond forgot.[/font][font=verdana]It was criminal stupidity.[/font][/quote][font=verdana]
The pilots the company and T.C. are incompetent and what is needed is for all of them to be sued in civil court for gross incompetence.[/font]
-
DeflectionShot
[quote]There is some discussion on the other site about how this wasn't on their checklist.
Apparently it's an item in the aircraft flight manual.[/quote]
Putting aside the SOPs, isn't checking your fuel a standard emergency procedure for any engine failure? IIRC in the 172 you check to see if the fuel is "on" and if it's on "both".
Apparently it's an item in the aircraft flight manual.[/quote]
Putting aside the SOPs, isn't checking your fuel a standard emergency procedure for any engine failure? IIRC in the 172 you check to see if the fuel is "on" and if it's on "both".
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 2 Replies
- 863 Views
-
Last post by Scudrunner
-
- 0 Replies
- 1102 Views
-
Last post by News
-
- 0 Replies
- 902 Views
-
Last post by News
