Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Helilog56

300 Crash

Recommended Posts

Really well this one says next to zero about the incident. The only information on this is who owned the aircraft and the Ident of it. Other then that it says it went on a site seeing tour and it had an accident. Doesn't say if it was inflight and had a failure. Or if was landing and hit something.

 

Surprisingly enough ... for a government run system .... CADORS only reports basic facts and updates the report as new information come in or else if something was reported incorrectly, it will make a correction.

 

As per the disclaimer at the bottom of the report;

 

"Please note that for the most part, CADORS reports contain preliminary, unconfirmed data which can be subject to change."

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprisingly enough ... for a government run system .... CADORS only reports basic facts and updates the report as new information come in or else if something was reported incorrectly, it will make a correction.

 

As per the disclaimer at the bottom of the report;

 

"Please note that for the most part, CADORS reports contain preliminary, unconfirmed data which can be subject to change."[/size]

Dispite the statement, the CADORS system has it's issues.

Exert from HAC letter (regulatory irritants) to Minister of State for Transport January 2013:

 

The reputation of the operator and future business is affected immediately by an “incorrect” CADORS Report. The inability to have its accuracy verified by the principal parties prior to “publishing” can put persons responsible for safety and airworthiness in a position of first correcting the report, then placating and reporting to TCCA POI/PMIs instead of immediate actions to correct or prevent re-occurrence.

The direct impact on aviation safety is that the current process diverts the attention of persons who can affect positive change away from the immediate problem and towards being defensive over unsubstantiated and incorrect CADORs.

Transport Canada has been approached on this issue in the regions and at headquarters. The operator has approached their PMI and a Safety officer with System Safety in Pacific Region. Both these persons were sympathetic to the operator’s concerns but had no official power to overturn or change a CADOR when another agency expressed reluctance.

A suggestion was made to the operator’s PMI to have a scheduled hold on CADORs before going on the official website and providing public access. During this period the principals could respond to address accuracy with the PMI/POI until the principals and the POI/PMI approve it. A time period (3 business days) could be agreed on and if there was no operator response, the CADORS report could go out as written.

Our members have indicated that this is a “Medium” level of importance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry here is the entire exert:

g) Civil Aviation Daily Occurrence Reporting CADORS

 

“Please note that for the most part, CADORS reports contain preliminary, unconfirmed data which can be subject to change”

The above statement appears at the bottom of each CADOR report issued on the website.

 

Generally speaking these initial reports contain incorrect information. Frequently these occurrences are written up and distributed without verification. The first call an operator gets from their PMI or POI is based on this supplied information. Time and resources are spent first of all, checking the accuracy of the report then supplying the accurate information to the PMI/POI.

Issue: Accuracy checking of CADORS Reports before making them public. These unsubstantiated reports are immediately available to the public and others. Any immediate corrected information is not immediately made available. After-the-fact changes to a CADORS report are difficult to address or get changed as there is no clear responsibility on who has authority to make changes and or more importantly which organization can authorize a change to be made. Customers and Media react to these unsubstantiated CADORs very quickly.The reputation of the operator and future business is affected immediately by an “incorrect” CADORS Report. The inability to have its accuracy verified by the principal parties prior to “publishing” can put persons responsible for safety and airworthiness in a position of first correcting the report, then placating and reporting to TCCA POI/PMIs instead of immediate actions to correct or prevent re-occurrence.

The direct impact on aviation safety is that the current process diverts the attention of persons who can affect positive change away from the immediate problem and towards being defensive over unsubstantiated and incorrect CADORs.

Transport Canada has been approached on this issue in the regions and at headquarters. The operator has approached their PMI and a Safety officer with System Safety in Pacific Region. Both these persons were sympathetic to the operator’s concerns but had no official power to overturn or change a CADOR when another agency expressed reluctance.

 

A suggestion was made to the operator’s PMI to have a scheduled hold on CADORs before going on the official website and providing public access. During this period the principals could respond to address accuracy with the PMI/POI until the principals and the POI/PMI approve it. A time period (3 business days) could be agreed on and if there was no operator response, the CADORS report could go out as written.

 

Our members have indicated that this is a “Medium” level of importance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you might have guessed, we have had first hand experience of these issues on more than one occassions (as I'm sure many have). I wouldn't want to side track this forum, but I suggest, (in the essence of sharing information) it would be a good topic for a forum.

 

In one case, it took us over 3 years (and two updates) to have a CADORS updated to have the root cause stated clearly. This, despite the fact we advised Transport Canada of the root cause on the day it was released....

 

In another, they resisted updating the CADORS, even though we had sattelite tracking data (from the aircraft in question) that contradicted what was printed in the initial report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the plot thickens....apparently an eye witness at the Pitt River Lodge while fishing watched the aircraft doing a high speed (?) low level river run and clipped his tail rotor on a tree..... tried to land and rolled on its side.....:(

Just happy no one was seriously hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the river well as I have flown up and down it many times... for many different reasons including Sockeye counts with DFO. There are numerous snags along the river including both dead and alive over hanging trees.… winds can scream through there causing a lot of blow down!!! The river is also very narrow at times with many tight bends. The weather that day was apparently awful!!!! I know the lodge owners well….I'll have to ask them about it the next time I see them. Glad to hear that they were not trying to water ski and nobody was seriously hurt. Fly Safe!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I worked for a neighbouring and/or competing flight school, I wouldn't comment on this topic until less is "apparent" hearsay, and more is TSB fact.

Commenting as such looks worse on you than it does on them.

All flight schools at YXX have had accidents, some very tragic.

How would you like your neighbours to behave if a tragedy struck your school again ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the river well as I have flown up and down it many times... for many different reasons including Sockeye counts with DFO. There are numerous snags along the river including both dead and alive over hanging trees.… winds can scream through there causing a lot of blow down!!! The river is also very narrow at times with many tight bends. The weather that day was apparently awful!!!! I know the lodge owners well….I'll have to ask them about it the next time I see them. Glad to hear that they were not trying to water ski and nobody was seriously hurt. Fly Safe!!!!!

The weather that day was apparently awful and this was suppose to be a sight seeing tour?????????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OT.......I manage often to make myself look worse in many aspects.....ask me if I really care.

 

In fact the pilot that recovered the wreckage sent a pm stating the similar information that the Pitt River Lodge owners witnessed and the fisherman. Apparently the hotdog mind set was in full operation here causing the crash.

 

Sight seeing....really

.

Am I slandering badmouthing a business here OT? Seems any potentially bad PR is because of some of the combined stunting that has transpired.....do a lot of us that try to be professional in the industry appreciate it.....I don't! But that's just my opinion.........plain and simple.

I know you understand the simple part well.

 

For the record....I work for Air Crane.

Cheers.....Bob

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...