Princess passengers in aircrash

[The_Big_M]

What grounds are there to say equipment failure?

[MicCanberra]

No grounds, but the pilot didn't see the other plane and/or didn't stick to the flight path and/or the equipment didn't let them know the plane was there, something went wrong.

[banzaii]

Many small plane will not have the kind of equipment that might detect another plane.  In fact most still rely on good old what you see out the windscreen.  It is very likely that neither plane could see the other at all if flying in the same direction at a similar altitude.

[MicCanberra]

Surely there is some sort of traffic control, even if it is just between the pilots.

[Aus Traveller]

8 minutes ago, MicCanberra said:

Surely there is some sort of traffic control, even if it is just between the pilots.

There is no air traffic control in the area. It only operates for the Ketchikan airport.

[Aus Traveller]

27 minutes ago, banzaii said:

Many small plane will not have the kind of equipment that might detect another plane.  In fact most still rely on good old what you see out the windscreen.  It is very likely that neither plane could see the other at all if flying in the same direction at a similar altitude.

The larger plane (the Otter on a Princess shore excursion) was descending from 3,800 feet to 3,300 feet where the Beaver plane was flying, probably on the same course. The Otter was flying faster than the Beaver. The pilot of the Beaver would not have been able to see another plane above and behind him. Somehow the pilot of the Otter didn't see the other plane. He survived.

 

With no black boxes and no cockpit voice recorders, authorities have to reconstruct events from interviews with the surviving pilot and passengers.

Edited May 16, 2019 by Aus Traveller

[stki]

We did a private tour with Island Wings in Ketchikan last May. It was a fabulous trip, one of our best ever. Michelle our pilot, said everything was Visual, no radar, no air traffic control,but she said they all talk to each other.

 

Such a tragedy 

 

Tanya

 

 

 

 

[MicCanberra]

34 minutes ago, Aus Traveller said:

There is no air traffic control in the area. It only operates for the Ketchikan airport.

That is why I said even if it is just the pilots, There would need to be some sort of coordination  for landings or take offs, even if just letting other pilots know what they plan to do. If not, perhaps there isn't and that may explain why this incident occurred.

[MicCanberra]

19 minutes ago, stki said:

We did a private tour with Island Wings in Ketchikan last May. It was a fabulous trip, one of our best ever. Michelle our pilot, said everything was Visual, no radar, no air traffic control, but she said they all talk to each other.

 

Such a tragedy 

Tanya

Mustn't of had the usual communication. Very sad indeed.

[The_Big_M]

Ultimately it appears to come down to pilot error. As pilots they're ultimately responsible, and as mentioned they typically only work visually and with radio comms in that airspace. 

 

Which appears to make at least two strikes for Taquan...

[vozzie]

In Aviation circles, the "see and avoid" technique of separation has long been seen as flawed. It's success is at the whim of so many factors...e.g. dirty windscreen, windscreen pillars, pilot workload, pilot distraction with other tasks, blind spots, the sun, the clouds, closing speeds, etc. In areas of high aviation activity, there are bound to be occasions when the see and avoid technique fails. It's all about the odds....the chances of two aircraft, in a big sky, being in the same place at the same time.

[MicCanberra]

It is very sad when the odds don't work out.

[MicCanberra]

I have just read that the Taquan planes would have had ACAS 11, so either it failed or the pilot failed to take note.

"The Airborne Collision Avoidance System II (ACAS II) was introduced in order to reduce the risk of mid-air collisions between aircraft. It serves as a last-resort safety net irrespective of any separation standards. "ACAS II is an aircraft system based on (SSR) transponder signals. ACAS II interrogates the Mode C and Mode S transponders of nearby aircraft (‘intruders’) and from the replies tracks their altitude and range and issues alerts to the pilots, as appropriate. ACAS II will not detect non-transponder-equipped aircraft and will not issue any resolution advice for traffic without altitude reporting transponder."

[The_Big_M]

4 hours ago, MicCanberra said:

I have just read that the Taquan planes would have had ACAS 11, so either it failed or the pilot failed to take note. 

 

 

Where did you see that? The plane should be capable of it, but I haven't seen anything to confirm it was actually fitted to that craft.

[MicCanberra]

I read it in an article and also another thread.

The Taquan plane, a de Havilland Otter DHC-3, was actually fitted with a Chelton Flightlogic Electronic Flight Instrument System.

[The_Big_M]

Odd... can't find any reference to that anywhere. Got a link?

[MicCanberra]

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/2019/05/15/ntsb-one-sightseeing-plane-descended-before-midair-collision-near-ketchikan-that-killed-5-cruise-passengers-and-pilot/

[Aus Traveller]

11 hours ago, MicCanberra said:

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/2019/05/15/ntsb-one-sightseeing-plane-descended-before-midair-collision-near-ketchikan-that-killed-5-cruise-passengers-and-pilot/

I have read that report a couple of times and cannot see where it says     (quote from your previous post) The Taquan plane, a de Havilland Otter DHC-3, was actually fitted with a Chelton Flightlogic Electronic Flight Instrument System.

 

The article does say  (quote)

The investigation could include a visibility study, to re-create what the pilots saw and whether there were obstructions in their view, she said. Among other items, the NTSB will also be looking to see if the pilots employed safety equipment allowing them to track other planes around them.

 

A few days ago I read elsewhere that the planes did NOT have collision avoidance equipment.

[MicCanberra]

5 hours ago, Aus Traveller said:

I have read that report a couple of times and cannot see where it says     (quote from your previous post) The Taquan plane, a de Havilland Otter DHC-3, was actually fitted with a Chelton Flightlogic Electronic Flight Instrument System.

 

The article does say  (quote)

The investigation could include a visibility study, to re-create what the pilots saw and whether there were obstructions in their view, she said. Among other items, the NTSB will also be looking to see if the pilots employed safety equipment allowing them to track other planes around them.

 

A few days ago I read elsewhere that the planes did NOT have collision avoidance equipment.

I had posted a link for a video as well, which is not there any more. In that the NTSB representative outlines the plans for the investigation and mentions that the plane had the system. I will try and post it again.