Plane crash near Hwy 33

[JagXKR]

Ok time for facts. The plane is a Rockwell Commander 700 according to Transport Canada.

http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/saf-sec-sur/2/c ... hSimp.aspx

Wiki gives this plane a range of 1384 miles, 2227 km.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuji/Rock ... mander_700

The pilot has stated (according to tonight's news) that he stopped in Boise for fuel. Boise airport is KBOI and Kelowna is CYLW. The distance between the 2 is 466 miles or 750 km.

http://www.flightmanager.com/content/ti ... eform.aspx

(you need to input KBOI in departure box and CYLW in arrival box.) You can use 200 knots for the cruise speed.

The only way to run out of fuel is to not put enough in or there was a very very bad leak. If the tanks were full the aircraft could fly from Boise to Kelowna AND back with plenty left over. I have an opinion as to which scenario is the cause but I will wait for the TSB to produce their report. Suffice to say I would never ever fly with that pilot. EVER.

[Piecemaker]

The latest news update (see link a few posts above) states that the plane did not run out of fuel.

[JagXKR]

So you think that 30 minutes of fuel left in a tank and the airport 11 minutes away is safe? You know nothing about flying then. Ask any pilot if he/she thinks that is safe and not one will say it is. Ask any pilot if they think that a plane with a range of over 2200 km only had 30 minutes left when it was still 11 minutes out and was only flying 1/3 of it's maximum range is safe. Unsafe completely. Just because there was fuel still in the tank does not mean it was being picked up by the engines. No good pilot would fuel their plane to have "just enough" fuel to get to there destination when they could easily put much more in. There are rules for fuelling a plane and having X amount more than needed to just get there.
The cruising speed of this aircraft makes the flying time just over 2 hours when the max fuel would allow over 5 hours. Having only 30 minutes left is wrong. Again I would never fly with this pilot if he thinks that having that small amount of fuel in the tank is proper.

[JagXKR]

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/ ... 8-3651.htm

Actually, the CARs require you to carry fuel to get to destination, account for all possible changes in wind, weather, air traffic control (ATC) clearances and "any other foreseeable conditions that could delay the landing of the aircraft" and then "plus 30 minutes" of fuel in daytime. Just carrying "destination plus 30 minutes" is not enough fuel to be safe every time.

This is for VFR

[Dizzy1]

So you think that 30 minutes of fuel left in a tank and the airport 11 minutes away is safe? You know nothing about flying then. Ask any pilot if he/she thinks that is safe and not one will say it is. Ask any pilot if they think that a plane with a range of over 2200 km only had 30 minutes left when it was still 11 minutes out and was only flying 1/3 of it's maximum range is safe. Unsafe completely. Just because there was fuel still in the tank does not mean it was being picked up by the engines. No good pilot would fuel their plane to have "just enough" fuel to get to there destination when they could easily put much more in. There are rules for fuelling a plane and having X amount more than needed to just get there.
The cruising speed of this aircraft makes the flying time just over 2 hours when the max fuel would allow over 5 hours. Having only 30 minutes left is wrong. Again I would never fly with this pilot if he thinks that having that small amount of fuel in the tank is proper.

I'm wondering if that 30min reported took into account reserves required for an IFR flight plan? Regardless, 30min left of usable fuel is iffy.

[JagXKR]

https://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/2 ... lane-crash

Pilot being sued now. I hope they win.

[gman313]

https://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/222968/Pilot-sued-for-plane-crash

Pilot being sued now. I hope they win.

when you say they, you may mean the pilot or you may mean the passengers

it's like asking. which one do you want, A or B. and the person answers, Yes

[Fancy]

when you say they, you may mean the pilot or you may mean the passengers

it's like asking. which one do you want, A or B. and the person answers, Yes

It's pretty clear if one has read the story. "They" is plural meaning the passengers so of course "they" should win their lawsuit.

[lensbaby]

Ok time for facts. The plane is a Rockwell Commander 700 according to Transport Canada.

http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/saf-sec-sur/2/c ... hSimp.aspx

Wiki gives this plane a range of 1384 miles, 2227 km.

The range of 1384 miles is with full fuel - which on this aircraft is 210 gal (1280lb)
The useful load is 2283 lb.
Deduct the fuel of 1280 lb and you are left with 1003lb for passengers and cargo.
I understand that this was 6 adults plus golf clubs - which would weigh more than 1003lb total.
So the fact is that 1384 miles was not the maximum range on this flight as it could not carry full fuel.
I don't believe that the maximum range was a factor as the plane landed at Idaho.
I also don't believe that the pilot only took on board the minimum amount of fuel - if you had ever bought Avgas in Kelowna, I can assure you that you would be loading up at Idaho prices (kinda like driving your car across the border). So I will wait for the Transport Canada findings. There are several reasons an aircraft can lose fuel which is not always obvious to the pilot while in flight. And the reports do actually state that the aircraft had fuel. The question for Transport to answer is how much did it leave Havasu with and how much did it take on in Idaho. Only that information will lead them to a pursue a path of pilot error or mechanical error. At the time the engines quit - regardless of why - the pilot did an amazing job of putting that plane onto a planted site without major injury or loss of life.

[JagXKR]

It's pretty clear if one has read the story. "They" is plural meaning the passengers so of course "they" should win their lawsuit.

Yep. That's what I mean.

[JagXKR]

At the time the engines quit - regardless of why - the pilot did an amazing job of putting that plane onto a planted site without major injury or loss of life.

He lucked out, not did an amazing job. I've flown over BC a lot in my many decades and having a place to land like that is more luck than anything else. More often than naught there is nowhere to make any kind of landing other than crashing.
I would never ever get in a plane flown by him. Not even on the ground with the engines off.

[squash junky]

Only that information will lead them to a pursue a path of pilot error or mechanical error. At the time the engines quit - regardless of why - the pilot did an amazing job of putting that plane onto a planted site without major injury or loss of life.

I think what they're saying is that the pilot should not have been in a position to do an amazing job crash landing. He should have stayed on the ground.

In a notice of civil claim, the plaintiffs allege the plane's engines “unexpectedly shut down” earlier in the flight, while on the ground during a refuelling stop in Boise, Idaho.

After Miskuski got the engines running again, the claim states the maintenance crew in Boise “advised Miskuski that he should have further maintenance work done on the engines before attempting to fly the airplane again,” but that he “disregarded this advice and declined all further maintenance.”

[Urban Cowboy]

These people are suing for emotional trauma and shock. Flying is, and always will be, inherently dangerous. That is the risk everyone takes if they make a decision to get onto ANY aircraft. I don't care if it's a 100hp C-152 or a 600,000hp A380. If it was a B737, and flames poured out of the left engine resulting in a high performance emergency landing that freaked everybody out, should someone get sued? Disarming the ELT, having his wife drive the passengers from the forced landing location to the airport, and not calling emergency services was not cool. Stupid actually. Were these people hurt physically?

Dizzy1 ...Yes, the tanks on the Commander can be dipped. Mr.Capt. had a fuel problem before departure ,which showed up again right before the engines shut down. Mr. Capt should have made the decision that the flight is cancelled until the fuel flow problem was signed off by a A.M.E.
Hence the saying -" It's better to be on the ground wishing you were flying, than to be flying ,and wishing you were on the ground ".

Yeah I wondered what their injuries were, because in one instance the story says they all walked away, then in another they're suing for injuries. So which was it?

As suspicious as I am of humans, I can't help but speculate that somewhere along the line, someone said to themselves "hey, those mechanics said the plane needed more work, yet we took off anyway and crashed", what better grounds to try and make a few bucks via a lawsuit.

[lensbaby]

These people are suing for emotional trauma and shock. Flying is, and always will be, inherently dangerous. That is the risk everyone takes if they make a decision to get onto ANY aircraft. I don't care if it's a 100hp C-152 or a 600,000hp A380. If it was a B737, and flames poured out of the left engine resulting in a high performance emergency landing that freaked everybody out, should someone get sued? Disarming the ELT, having his wife drive the passengers from the forced landing location to the airport, and not calling emergency services was not cool. Stupid actually. Were these people hurt physically?

Dizzy1 ...Yes, the tanks on the Commander can be dipped. Mr.Capt. had a fuel problem before departure ,which showed up again right before the engines shut down. Mr. Capt should have made the decision that the flight is cancelled until the fuel flow problem was signed off by a A.M.E.
Hence the saying -" It's better to be on the ground wishing you were flying, than to be flying ,and wishing you were on the ground ".

Yeah I wondered what their injuries were, because in one instance the story says they all walked away, then in another they're suing for injuries. So which was it?

As suspicious as I am of humans, I can't help but speculate that somewhere along the line, someone said to themselves "hey, those mechanics said the plane needed more work, yet we took off anyway and crashed", what better grounds to try and make a few bucks via a lawsuit.

A few things don't add up.
1) If an A&E had looked at the plane and recommended that it not fly, he could have made an entry in the log which would have invalidated the airworthiness certificate.

2) In the unlikely event that passengers were actually privy to that conversation, they were all adults and could have elected not to continue the flight - but they did.

3) after the plane came down in the Christmas Tree Farm they say that the pilot called his wife but not ambulance. So there was cell service as he called. Were all of these adults travelling without cell phones? If they really were injured could they not call for an ambulance themselves.

4) They claim the pilot failed to activate the ELT on the ground. An ELT would scramble search and rescue - but the plane was down, they knew where it was and everyone walked away.

I'm not claiming the pilot was guiltless - but seems to me the passengers are trying to act as though they had no choice but to go along blindly with whatever the pilot did - which of course is far from the truth.
This should make for an interesting court case.

[Urban Cowboy]

Agreed. I just feel something is fishy and doesn't quite add up.

Not much point in activating an emergency locator, when you know where you are, and have already made ground contact.

It just reeks of passengers looking to exploit the situation for financial gain.