Neptune Aviation P2 down near Tooele, UT

[firepilot]

Disagree

I totally disagree this is not the time nor the place. I personally knew both Tom and Mike having worked with of them over the years. While this accident is a horrible loss hopefully it is perceived as ANOTHER wakeup call to the industry. Things definety need to change or we all will be standing in the unemployment line. Pilots need to make better decisions, instructors at the companies need to tighten the reins in training, and we definetly need to self regulate ourselves a whole hell of alot better than we do. Times have changed and we as pilots need to relize that. The days of scud running to honor a dispatch are OVER!! We need to wake up.

 

[avbug]

What makes you think this was a "scud running dispatch?"

Again, inventing rules and regulations when we don't know what happened...is idiotic.

Why T-42 was at that elevation at that time isn't presently known. Scud running? Don't know. Medical problem? Don't know. Aircraft problem? Don't know. We simply don't know why they went down there.

Have you looked at the AFF tracks for that day? I had discussions with the USFS about it two days ago, and they weren't scud running from Missoula to Alamogordo. A descent occured in there for reasons that aren't known.

Until they are known, make it a "wake up" call all you like...but wake up to what? To what we don't know? Rather than speculate and guess, which is very unprofessional and not in keeping with what we do, all we can hope for is increased vigilance on the part of everyone.

Again, I ask, do you have some special insight here, some crystal ball, that nobody else has? I think not. Wait for the facts.

 

[firepilot]

As a matter of fact i have seen they're track on AFF. I know what altitude they were flying and what there airspeed was. I also know what the current weather conditions in the Toole and Salt Lake area were at that present time. Plain and simple one crews BAD decision making has a huge effect on the industry and how we are percieved. You can give the credit to my crystal ball, but big changes are already starting to happening at Neptune. Like i said the old school ways have to change or we are all going to be out of a job.

 

[avbug]

You don't know it was bad decision making. You don't know what took that airplane to that level. I also have seen the AFF track, and they didn't make the entire flight at that altitude. We don't know how or why they ended up at that point; you're speculating, guessing, and your comments are both unprofessional and unproductive.

 

[firepilot]

It WAS horrible decision making and it regrettably cost them their lives. Flying VFR into IMC conditions is not acceptable in any case. Your correct the entire flight was not flown at their final altitude. Clouds were definetly alot lower in the SLC area. Have you had contact with anyone from Neptune Inc in the last couple of days?? Sounds like there is a alot of speculation coming straight out of Missoula. Give any of there pilots a call and ask them about the recent changes that are a result of this crash. It may shock you. I'm not stating my opinion to disrespect any of the crew. I'm stating it because i deeply give a sh** about the future. Just remember we are one crash away from being shut down. Here's some interesting reading for you. It was posted by a firefighter today on another website. When we lose the ground troops support we are in dire trouble. The bullsh** has to stop here.




Abs & All,

My deepest condolences to the families and friends of the crew of Tanker 42.

This has to stop. Frankly, I would rather give up being the recipient of another load of fixed-wing delivered retardant on any fire for which I am responsible for the duration of my fire career than to ever have to see yet another set of families ripped apart by the loss of their loved ones. It ain't worth it.

Based on our recent history, the current odds against surviving a year's work as an air tanker pilot in the US are somewhere around 20 to 1. No offense to the fine people who fly these aircraft, but that is beyond shameful. It is scandalous, and the federal land management agencies need to be held accountable. The price of retardant is just too damn high these days.

 

[avbug]

Have you had contact with anyone from Neptune Inc in the last couple of days??

Yes. Of course.

The fact remains that neither you, nor anyone else, has any idea what happened. Guesses, yes. Knowledge, no. Only three know, or knew. They're not talking.

I'm familiar with the other web site, having frequently posted there myself.

Just remember we are one crash away from being shut down.

You're new to this business, then?

 

[firepilot]

No i'm not new to this business, are you?? Just from your previous posts on this subject i have a very good idea you do not work for any of the current LAT operators. This would explain why your not receiving the same info the rest of us are, but since you have been in contact with personal from Neptune you must know the changes that are currently being implemented as a result of this crash. It sure seems like a costly, unnecessary reaction by the company if it is based purely on speculation. I have a feeling they have a very good idea what happened. If you remember all our LAT are equipped with recording devices now. Obviously, you and I can argue about this until the final report comes out. My point is that may be too late if we do not change. Bad judgement is going to kill this industry. There is no reason to take unnecessary chances anymore, the days of flight pay are gone. The pressure to keep food on the table went away with it. We need to realize this is not 1980!!

 

[avbug]

I remember what it used to be like, mate...and today the business is nothing like that. Not in the slightest.

Take a vallium, calm down a little, reign in your horses, and realize that the industry isn't shutting down today.

The sky isn't falling. T-42 wasn't lost over a fire or as the result of a retardant request; it was lost on a point to point repositioning, enroute to a fire...but we don't know why.

Yes, neptune is taking steps. Neptune hasn't stood still in the past when losses have occured, either. Do you know why orange flight suits are worn today at Neptune? I do, and it was the direct result of a mishap. Much like the "FAR's," what we do in this industry is very much written in blood.

Making up rules and screaming bloody murder in abject ignorance (as we know nothing of the facts, presently) won't change that...no matter how great the panic you may feel.

Again, as you seem to lack the professionalism to realize this, perhaps you might consider starting a new thread to rant about your political views, rather than pollute this one.

 

[Megalops]

I know why orange flight suits are worn there, I was there at the time. The fact remains T-42 hit a mountain on a reposition flight. Not a normal occurance for a ferry flight but one that is alarmingly common in Tankers, that cannot be denied. Did they have a problem? maybe, Neptunes are old, stuff happens. Regardless this accident will have far reaching implications for the heavy tankers, what they will be no one knows.

 

[BushwickBill]

That said, we don't know what happened. For those calling for greater regulation, exactly what do you intend to regulate? Make it illegal to strike a hillside in flight? Make it illegal to fly at low altitudes? Put in place requirements that we don't crash? No one is foolish enough to suggest such things...but that leaves us with nothing to regulate. We don't know why this mishap occured, and accordingly, inventing rules and regulations to address the unknown is a futile and idiotic endeavor.

What about TAWS? Its all but eliminated this type of accident in 135 and 121.

Sure it would be annoying as hell during fire fighting but it would help during other phases of flight.

 

[avbug]

Once again, we do NOT know what happened here. We do NOT know why the crew elected to go where they did, or if they elected to go where they did.

Typical flights to the fire and back are not made in the flight levels.

A few years ago during a repositioning flight in an airplane equipped with EGPWS and TAWS, I had a discussion with another captain about the ability to predicate terrain avoidance on the terrain database, display, and warnings. I'm firmly in the camp that says it's an idiotic concept to make such an effort, and he believed he could pick his way out of terrain using the onboard equipment.

We entered a low-level environment in an area surrounded by rising terrain, and I asked him to pick an exit canyon predicated on the equipment. He did, and then I demonstrated to him that it would have been a fatal choice.

Certainly TAWS is a dandy development for the airliner flying an approach. It's not necessarily a great feature for an air tanker.

I've no doubt that increased use of TAWS and EGPWS will continue to be had in the industry, however, just as TCAS became prevailant. I've flown tankers that had onboard database-predicated terrain avoidance displays, warnings, and equipment, and found it so distracting that I disabled it.

Should you find yourself flying a tanker, your mileage may vary.

 

[BushwickBill]

Once again, we do NOT know what happened here. We do NOT know why the crew elected to go where they did, or if they elected to go where they did.

Typical flights to the fire and back are not made in the flight levels.

A few years ago during a repositioning flight in an airplane equipped with EGPWS and TAWS, I had a discussion with another captain about the ability to predicate terrain avoidance on the terrain database, display, and warnings. I'm firmly in the camp that says it's an idiotic concept to make such an effort, and he believed he could pick his way out of terrain using the onboard equipment.

We entered a low-level environment in an area surrounded by rising terrain, and I asked him to pick an exit canyon predicated on the equipment. He did, and then I demonstrated to him that it would have been a fatal choice.

Certainly TAWS is a dandy development for the airliner flying an approach. It's not necessarily a great feature for an air tanker.

I've no doubt that increased use of TAWS and EGPWS will continue to be had in the industry, however, just as TCAS became prevailant. I've flown tankers that had onboard database-predicated terrain avoidance displays, warnings, and equipment, and found it so distracting that I disabled it.

Should you find yourself flying a tanker, your mileage may vary.

Cheers Avbug.

I have found TAWS and EGPWS helpfull during 135 flights out west at night.

I certainly miss having it now that I am flying a king air without terrain or TCAS.

I too thought that EGPWS could help avoid terrain. I never attempted anything like you mentioned but I found it very comforting flying out of Rifle, CO.

I did read however that EGPWS was the single greatest factor in reducing CFIT to practically zero.

 

[flyingwildfires]

TAWS is a nice helper on night VFR in the mountains, and I am an old fart who firnly believes in charts and studying them. Why not take advantage of what's out there? Turn the crap off when you're on the fire.

And I have lost one helluva lot of friends in this business, and I know better than to think it will stop.

 

[414Flyer]

And I have lost one helluva lot of friends in this business, and I know better than to think it will stop.

One guy I know who has been around since the Sis-Q days, told me he has lost more friends in crashes in this business, than he friends he currently has

 

[flyingwildfires]

It's a sad truth, what your friend says.

One day we were talking, and decided to add it up. For some terrible reason, it's averaged at least one fatality per year since I started in fire. 10 years was around 10 dead friends, 20 was around 20, and now 32 years makes for 35 people gone. Two of those are fine smokejumpers killed in '94; the other 33 are pilots, both fixed-wing and helicopter. I don't count the people I didn't know.

People who do this for a living never forget their buds who have taken off, and not come back to the field by sunset.

But -- here we are. And, fire season could start tomorrow, for me.

 

[flyingwildfires]

It's unbelievable to read the transcript from the CVR. :-(

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=WPR09GA216&rpt=fa

 

[ultrarunner]

UN-FRIGGIN-BELIEVABLE I would say Fylingwildfires....

First, the FO's conduct on the morning of the flight is essentially CRIMINAL in nature.....

1. The night before the crash, he tried to file a VFR flight plan, but couldn't for the reasons stated. So, you can deduct that the crew had planned all along to fly VFR.

2. Morning of the crash, TELLS the briefer "we're filed IFR". That was a lie. And gets into DUAT for a low altitude plain-language briefing. FO didn't have the friggin balls to tell they briefer we're 'going VFR', since you know darn well what the briefer would have said to that.

3. They depart VFR. And during the entire flight, attempt to skirt rain showers, thunderstorms, lowering ceilings, restricted airspace, class-B, etc...


Right up to the point where they killed themselves!

Classy!

 

[ultrarunner]

The sad part is, the FO and Cpt murdered someone that had no say in the matter. A TAWS and/or an E-GipWiz would have saved them all that day, as this was clearly a CFIT accident. But the FO and CPT would have simply lived another day to make the same poor decisions they did that morning, again.

 

[avbug]

The sad thing is that you really have no clue whence you speak.

Everybody has a say in the matter, and I know from personal experience with those lost that Tom was no different. He listened and he tended to be very objective.

One riding on board most definitely does have a say in the matter. One picks up one end of the stick one picks up the other. Who put a gun to his head and made him get onboard?

Nobody was "murdered." To be sure, a loss of life occurred. An unfortunate mishap. But no murder took place here. You speak stupidly to assert as much.

The night before the crash, he tried to file a VFR flight plan, but couldn't for the reasons stated. So, you can deduct that the crew had planned all along to fly VFR.

Clearly you're past your depth. And apparently clairvoyant.

Generally on a fire dispatch, a flight plan is not filed. An agency flight plan is maintained, and no longer requires regular check-ins because of the onboard automated flight following tracking equipment. That the crew considered filing a flight plan at all is a noteworthy act on their part.

Operations are generally conducted at low altitude, and close to terrain.

You were not privy to the conversations between the crewmembers, leading up to the flight. Neither was I. Therefore, your wild speculation on intention is misplaced. Perhaps the crew intended to file one way then another, and finally decided to perform an acceptable and perfectly legal departure using AFF for agency tracking.

Morning of the crash, TELLS the briefer "we're filed IFR". That was a lie. And gets into DUAT for a low altitude plain-language briefing. FO didn't have the friggin balls to tell they briefer we're 'going VFR', since you know darn well what the briefer would have said to that.

More stupidity, on your part.

The copilot didn't need "freaking balls" to file VFR, or to file IFR. Neither would he have cared what the controller thought. Perhaps he thought he had filed and that the flight plan had been accepted. Perhaps he thought his captain had filed; you don't know. Perhaps he intended to file. Perhaps he was thinking out loud.

An extended weather briefing and flight planning is a rarity during a tanker dispatch. I can tell you I operated for many years in multiple types of tankers, often with no more than five minutes to be airborne if loaded, and just the time to get on nomex, load, and get airborne if I wasn't already loaded. Getting a weather briefing, filing a flight plan? Often, not. You really have no clue about this kind of an operation, do you?

Flying a tanker isn't a white shirt and tie, after-shave and cuff-link kind of operation. Simply because it's something you don't understand, something with which you have no experience, and something that falls outside the narrow guidelines of your own limited experinece, don't make the mistake of spouting off as though you've something to say here; clearly you don't.

They depart VFR. And during the entire flight, attempt to skirt rain showers, thunderstorms, lowering ceilings, restricted airspace, class-B, etc...

Your point is? This is what one does when one is VFR. Do you not know this?

A TAWS and/or an E-GipWiz would have saved them all that day, as this was clearly a CFIT accident.

You don't know that, at all.

 

[ultrarunner]

Well Avbug, you've read the factual data. What is your opinion?

You don't think that this crew continued VFR flight into IFR conditions that ultimately led then to fly into rising terrain?

Heck at one point they were using some garmin unit for weather avoidance, etc..and you can clearly hear the CPT telling the FO, "don't go in the yellow" or something to that effect...and then again, we should be out of this area in '10 miles'.

Heck, IMHO they were down low IN IFR conditions, using some piece of equipment for purposes is may not have actually been intended.

Do you maintain Avbug that this was NOT a CFIT that killed them all?

And before you get all 'high and mighty' about this crew was on some heroic mission....

They were on a friggin cross country flight of nearly 1100 miles! That requires a certain level of flight planning responsibility on part of the crew when they had planned to do this VFR. And with the weather system in effect at the time.

The FO never had the expectation that his IFR flight plan had been accepted the night before, because the factual data clearly indicates he attempted to file VFR flight plan and with a VFR altitude. So give me a break Avbug!

So avbug, call me stupid. Go right ahead.

Why don't you chime in with your expert opinion!