Newf situation...

[iceberglead]

I see the latest accident here on the island doesn't seem to merit investigation by TC. What gives with that?? Passengers involved.
VOCM (http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36638)

[Runway101]

I can just imagine that this is because the cause of accident is clear. Pilot flew into the tree, admitted his mistake, and there is nothing further to investigate...?

Imagine an 80 pages accident report that took 2 years to investigate and write and makes two recommendations: airmen should follow regulations and good aviation practice. And keep the moving parts out of trees at all costs ;)

Surely looks like this turned out to be quite an expensive joyride according to the photo on the web site.

[Teefor Gage]

I like the informed reporting of "the back propellor coming off". I guess that's the bit that pushes the helicopter forward?

T4

[bb in ca]

I see the article states "Transportation Safety Board will not be investigating the helicopter crash". They usually investigate to discover cause.

I think Transport Canada will do some type of investigation to determine if the helicopter was being flown in accordance with the regulations at the time of the accident.

You can bet that phone call to the boss would be a difficult one.

[newfieboy]

Yep, I guess the call to the Boss would of had some akward moments, think pilot told the boss 'back propellor came off'? :ugh:

[iceberglead]

I agree. However, there must be repercussions for unprofessional action. I've been a Commercial Heli pilot for twenty years and have seen pilots put through the grindmill for much less than this. Whenever you have pax on board you must have a Government rep that takes the situation seriously. Does this guy need to be seriously reviewed. I think so. I wouldn't want my kids flying with someone that has a reckless attitude or the fact that he is talentless. Clearly someone slipped through the cracks, I expect someone in Government should recognize it and take appropriate action.
Incident/accident free, I am, by the way, because I treat flying very seriously. Sure the results are clear but there must be consequences.
That was my point. I'm sure the tree didn't ambush him on it's own accord.

[flyer43]

Actually, if you look at the comment in the news report about the back propellor coming off, there are various ways of reading this.
Did the tail rotor come off due to some mechanical problem, or did it come off as a result of impacting the trees?
There is little in the news report that says sufficient to warrant no investigation.
However, there is a difference between an investigation and a prosecution for dangerous flying. Why waste the time of good investigators if the pilot has admitted to a gross error by failing to recognise the conditions that caused the accident - eg. proximity and height of the trees surrounding the landing site etc.

The flight apppears to have been operated under the private category, although I may be proven wrong here of course. Therefore, it is unlikely that much will be done in terms of punishment for the pilot, other than what he has already suffered.

iceberglead, you say that you are accident/incident free cos you treat flying very seriously. I think that you'll find that most of the members on this site treat flying very seriously, but many, like me, have experienced some form of accident or incident as a result of something that they were not fully aware of. As far as I am concerned, flying is a continuous learning process, but sometimes the lessons can be very hard!

[GoodGrief]

Those "accident/incident free" guys always make me wonder. Hmmm...

[iceberglead]

True enough Flyer43. Don't get me wrong, I've had my share of close calls and I'm sure blind luck plays it's roll as well but I have seen many instances of incompetence over the years. Not everyone has an accident history. Safety is the issue and I think Transport Canada needs to maintain an important role in any accident.

[Gomer Pylot]

Does Transport Canada automatically do a full investigation of every accident? Down here south of the border, the FAA/NTSB don't investigate every Part 91 accident (whatever the equivalent up there may be), and I doubt the pilot's wife and sisters were paying passengers.

It's certainly not clear to me from just reading the link that the accident was the result of pilot carelessness. If you lose the tail rotor on a 206 at the wrong time during a confined area approach, you'll be very lucky not to hit something. I have no idea where or why the 'rear propellor' was lost, but it could very well be that the tree strike was the result of that, not the reverse.

[Runway101]

I am wondering if the folks in this video had a full scale investigation, or if the accident investigation team concluded their findings right after viewing this footage:

pilot: "think I'd make it in between there...?"

gunner: "Nope"

pilot: "Oh, ye of little faith, look how big that is..."

...

then... "MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY"

x4CQfaBGWSo