Plane crash near Hwy 33

[vinnied]

On one hand we have the TSB saying it stalled because of "fuel exhaustion". Case closed
But then we have the folks suing the pilot, because the plane unexpectedly shut down while on the ground during the last refueling stop. yet he continued on after the problem was rectified. However this is kinda irrelevant, because the same mechanical error wasn't the reason for the crash. I dont understand what the folks suing are getting at. Well besides free money.

[Jflem1983]

On one hand we have the TSB saying it stalled because of "fuel exhaustion". Case closed
But then we have the folks suing the pilot, because the plane unexpectedly shut down while on the ground during the last refueling stop. yet he continued on after the problem was rectified. However this is kinda irrelevant, because the same mechanical error wasn't the reason for the crash. I dont understand what the folks suing are getting at. Well besides free money.

Ive met one of the people on board. They got money already. I have no idea what the case is all about. I do know these people are not broke

[Busdriver1964]

Did he run out fuel because of poor planning or because a mechanical issue ?
It is not a long flight?

[lensbaby]

Did he run out fuel because of poor planning or because a mechanical issue ?
It is not a long flight?

TC initial findings were that there was fuel in the aircraft - enough to reach Kelowna but not enough to be legal allowing for alternates and reserve. Given that his last point of departure was a place where fuel was much cheaper than Kelowna, it is unlikely that he would have taken on a minimal amount. A loss of fuel in flight would seem the most likely cause - but that still doesn't explain why both engines quit without warning - there is usually lots of warning. Leak? Faulty Fuel Management System? Far more conjecture than evidence at this time.

[GenesisGT]

TC initial findings were that there was fuel in the aircraft - enough to reach Kelowna but not enough to be legal allowing for alternates and reserve. Given that his last point of departure was a place where fuel was much cheaper than Kelowna, it is unlikely that he would have taken on a minimal amount. A loss of fuel in flight would seem the most likely cause - but that still doesn't explain why both engines quit without warning - there is usually lots of warning. Leak? Faulty Fuel Management System? Far more conjecture than evidence at this time.

Where did you come up with these supposed TC initial findings.

TC does not do investigations into aircraft incidents/accidents, investigations are done by the Transportation Safety Board(TSB).

TSB findings do not indicate anything about "There was fuel in the aircraft"

TSB#A16P0079: C-GBCM, a privately owned Rockwell 700 Commander, was on a VFR flight from Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Field, ID (KBOI) to Kelowna, BC (CYLW) with 6 persons on board. Approximately 34 nautical miles south of Kelowna and at an altitude of 8500 feet ASL, the aircraft ran out of fuel. The pilot feathered both props, extended the landing gear and made an emergency landing in a Christmas tree farm field in the vicinity of Beaverdell, BC. The aircraft hit a fence and trees and sustained wing and tail damage. No Mayday call was made and the ELT was not activated. No injuries were reported.

The initial report, more then likely filed by the pilot, indicated forced landing due to an engine failure, no mention of fuel made at that time, according to the initial report.

reported by phone that there had been a forced landing in the vicinity of Beaverdell, BC due to an engine failure.

I am quite sure if the pilot had fuel to make it to Kelowna, he would not have chosen to land in a Xmas tree farm field.

Landing without the reserve fuel referred to, is not illegal. The rule is to meet the fuel requirements when the aircraft is starting engine(s) before run up and taxing out for departure.

This was a VFR flight, thus no alternate airport would have been filed, thus there was no requirement to have more reserve fuel then required to land at Kelowna, besides good airmanship.

[lensbaby]

TC initial findings were that there was fuel in the aircraft - enough to reach Kelowna but not enough to be legal allowing for alternates and reserve. Given that his last point of departure was a place where fuel was much cheaper than Kelowna, it is unlikely that he would have taken on a minimal amount. A loss of fuel in flight would seem the most likely cause - but that still doesn't explain why both engines quit without warning - there is usually lots of warning. Leak? Faulty Fuel Management System? Far more conjecture than evidence at this time.

Where did you come up with these supposed TC initial findings.

TC does not do investigations into aircraft incidents/accidents, investigations are done by the Transportation Safety Board(TSB).

TSB findings do not indicate anything about "There was fuel in the aircraft"

[quote]

OK - TSB. I was more interested in the fuel than the acronym.
And the "supposed" findings are reported by Global News

Transportation Safety Board investigator Bill Yearwood said there was 18 gallons of fuel on board when the engines lost power. Enough, he said, for the entire journey to Kelowna.

Yearwood suggested Global News should look for possible answers about the crash in the owner’s manual of the Commander 700 where he said it states the plane engines may die while 18 gallons remains in the tanks under “special circumstances.” -

[goalie]

Maybe the plane was full of ahem something other than fuel. Turn off Emitter so nobody shows up too fast. Good way to avoid CBA.

[GenesisGT]

Found the article about the 18 gallons of fuel remaining on the aircraft, which differs from the CADORS statement filed by the TSB which stated

the aircraft ran out of fuel.

(see above for full statement).

If there was fuel in the aircraft, that would explain why the original CADORS report was filed as

an engine failure

.

I am sure the lawyers will have fun with the contradicting statements.

https://globalnews.ca/news/2783798/kelowna-bound-plane-had-enough-fuel/

[rookie314]

CADORS is an initial report and doesn't even qualify as a preliminary report. The TSB report is more factual. The CADORS would have no relevance in court.

"Transport Canada collects aviation occurrence information through CADORS. The purpose of the system is to provide initial information on occurrences involving any Canadian-registered aircraft as well as events which occur at Canadian airports, in Canadian sovereign airspace, or international airspace for which Canada has accepted responsibility that includes events involving foreign registered aircraft.

Transport Canada endeavours to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the data contained within CADORS, however, the information within should be treated as preliminary, unsubstantiated and subject to change.

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada is the official source of aviation accident and incident data in Canada."

[Temet Nosce]

On one hand we have the TSB saying it stalled because of "fuel exhaustion". Case closed
But then we have the folks suing the pilot, because the plane unexpectedly shut down while on the ground during the last refueling stop. yet he continued on after the problem was rectified. However this is kinda irrelevant, because the same mechanical error wasn't the reason for the crash. I dont understand what the folks suing are getting at. Well besides free money.

Ive met one of the people on board. They got money already. I have no idea what the case is all about. I do know these people are not broke

You met someone that was on the plane who received money? Money from where?
I realize now I misunderstood the "they got money already" part. Made no sense. Anyway it's completely irrelevant and inaccurate.

[kenzie stefanski]

For any who is commenting that these people are just looking for money are clearly and obviously stupid. Try to put yourself in there shoes, if you fell 13,000 feet from the sky thinking you were going to die you would be pretty *bleep* up and have major trauma and now suffer from ptsd, I’m speaking from my own experience as I was in an accident and am currently going thru the same stuff with ptsd and insurance. We have insurance for a reason. This man landed this plane not because he is a “good pilot”, it was simply pure luck. Seriously rethink your *bleep* thoughts before putting them out there.

[Temet Nosce]

Don't worry it's pretty obvious which ones on here are full of *bleep* and don't know anyone who was on the plane.... most recognize (aka ignore) their *bleep*.

[stuphoto]

I don't know anything about planes, however the one thing I am questioning is their statement that the plane stalled while refueling.
I am not allowed to leave my car running while fueling it up. Is a plane allowed to run while they are?
Could the pilot not have shut it down rather than it having stalled?

[vinnied]

For any who is commenting that these people are just looking for money are clearly and obviously stupid.

If your suing someone, your obviously suing to get some kind of monetary gain. the money part is a given. Whether they need it or not. They want this pilot to pay for what he did wrong
My earlier question was more about the reasoning behind the case. What did he do wrong? If it ran out of fuel, that has nothing to do with it stalling on the tarmac for a mechanical issue that was rectified, so how do they even have a case?

[Anonymous123]

For any who is commenting that these people are just looking for money are clearly and obviously stupid.

If your suing someone, your obviously suing to get some kind of monetary gain. the money part is a given. Whether they need it or not. They want this pilot to pay for what he did wrong
My earlier question was more about the reasoning behind the case. What did he do wrong? If it ran out of fuel, that has nothing to do with it stalling on the tarmac for a mechanical issue that was rectified, so how do they even have a case?

Rectified?

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.”