Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By kanga
#1741595
Lefty wrote:.. you could (if you had to) quite easily fly at 100 - 200ft all the way from Goose Bay out to the Atlantic coast at Indian Harbour (following Lake Melville and the Hamilton Inlet all the way). ..


.. and, as boltholes if ceiling too low, there is now an airstrip at Rigolet, near the mouth of Hamilton Inlet ..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigolet

.. as well as at Cartwright to the South and Makkovik and Postville not far to the North

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postville ... d_Labrador .

Renewed kudos to the Makkovik ground rescue team, some of whose families I know, for their selfless efforts in dreadful conditions :salut:
Flyin'Dutch', Iceman, G-BLEW and 2 others liked this
User avatar
By SteveC
#1741813
Chilli Monster wrote:Nice to see my original comments on the legality of the flight and the so called “Ferry Pilot” have been legitimised by the report.

All those who defended him, I’ll take your apologies now.

:thumleft:
User avatar
By Rob P
#1752066
kanga wrote:faulty nav equipment, says surviving pilot:


The altimeter that showed them they were below the height of the terrain in the area was faulty?

I seem to remember someone being particularly active in leading the TC-T lynch mob. Maybe it would have been advantageous had he taken a qualified instructor in the back seat on his trip?

Rob P
Last edited by Rob P on Fri Mar 13, 2020 12:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Iceman
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1752124
So someone ‘plans’ a route, ‘knows’ what the MSAs are, has a perfectly functional (probably two) altimeter in front of him, and still elects to fly at a level below MSA in IMC conditions. Obviously, no amount of kit, working or ‘otherwise’, is going to save a ‘pilot’ from such a lack of basic airmanship and common sense, especially when having already admitted to knowing that the high ground was there.

Iceman 8)
Rob P, AlanC liked this
User avatar
By 2Donkeys
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1752129
Very easy to second guess these inquests, but on the basis of the information made available via the accident report, I had imagined a misadventure verdict rather than accidental death. The differences between the two are quite technical, but misadventure does seem to have a more natural alignment with the circumstances.
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1752134
SteveC wrote:What on earth were they doing scud running in a pressurised fully IFR aircraft?


Exactly, why were they down in the weeds. The whole point of that type of aeroplane its to get up and over that kind of weather IFR.
User avatar
By Chilli Monster
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1752146
Comments made by somebody who:

a) Has the arrogance to think they’re blameless; and

b) Knows the dead can’t defend themselves.

The reason given for scud running was “strong headwinds en-route”. If that was the case, as I’ve said elsewhere, a SENSIBLE PiC would have gone North, or waited out the weather conditions.

This was poor Captaincy and decision making skills by a Cowboy - end of story
Rob P, Lefty, 2Donkeys liked this