Transport Canada Shares Blame For Accident

[OverUnder]

Here is the TSB Report:

Transportation Safety Board of Canada | | A08P0353 | Controlled Flight into Terrain

I find this portion especially disconcerting (Page 5):

Pacific Coastal management had met with the pilot three times to discuss concerns they had with his decision making. The last meeting, about three months before the accident, was held because management was concerned that he was completing trips in what other pilots deemed to be adverse wind and sea conditions. The company believed that this behaviour was causing other pilots to feel pressured to fly in those conditions and was also influencing customer expectations.

Not to mention this (Page 15):


Some pilots and operators challenge the interpretation of the minimum weather regulation. For example, the regulation refers to a minimum height “above ground level.” Some operators assert that this does not apply in the case of floatplane flights because they operate above water.

Additionally, because the regulation states that clearance must be maintained from obstacles “or” ground, it is argued that one clearance is sufficient rather than both. Finally, when flying over water, some operators contend that they are above an aerodrome and, as such, may fly for extended periods at low altitude as long as they are configured for landing. This is referred to as the infinite runway concept and, although not a factor in this accident, is often used to skirt the intent of the regulations and continue flight in conditions below legal weather minima.