Canadair CL-415 Accident - Fatal Two

[fholbert]

Status:
Date:	Thursday 27 October 2022
Type:	Canadair CL-215-6B11 (CL-415)
Operator:	Vigili del Fuoco
Registration:	I-DPCN
MSN:	2070
First flight:
Engines:	2 Pratt & Whitney Canada PW123AF
Crew:	Fatalities: 2 / Occupants: 2
Passengers:	Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 0
Total:	Fatalities: 2 / Occupants: 2
Aircraft damage:	Destroyed
Aircraft fate:	Written off (damaged beyond repair)
Location:	near Linguaglossa, Sicily ( Italy)
Phase:	Maneuvering (MNV)
Nature:	Fire fighting
Departure airport:	Lamezia-Terme-S Eufemia Airport (SUF/LICA), Italy
Destination airport:	?

Narrative:
A Canadair CL-415 fire fighting plane impacted the side of a mountain near Linguaglossa. Both pilots died in the accident.
The aircraft was fighting a forest fire and had just released its load of water when it contacted the downlope of a mountain and broke up.

 

[Murdoughnut]

There's video, unfortunately.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1585668117124026369

 

[fholbert]

From another angle.

 

[Murdoughnut]

From another angle.

Can't tell if they dumped it to hit the fire or to try and escape that turn. Would it be SOP to drop retardant at that bank angle?

 

[Maximilian_Jenius]

Can't tell if they dumped it to hit the fire or to try and escape that turn. Would it be SOP to drop retardant at that bank angle?

Paging @Bumblebee

 

[fholbert]

Can't tell if they dumped it to hit the fire or to try and escape that turn. Would it be SOP to drop retardant at that bank angle?

I’d guess they were trying to lighten the load. Look where the load lands.

 

[Pilot Fighter]

Damn, I wasn’t picturing that.

 

[MikeD]

Looks like an accelerated stall in one of the videos. Unfortunately, being an amphibian and using water instead of retardant, it requires a lower drop altitude to get some water effect without the water mostly dissipating. And in a deep canyon like this, that means having to enter the canyon to some degree in order to accomplish that…..a canyon far more suited to helicopter ops. Why the IC would allow or request that, I don’t know. Better to allow the fire to burn upslope to an area where the tanker can more effectively hit it, or line cut and burnout from the ridge top, backing down to the fire. Rather than risk a medium tanker committing itself into low lying terrain. For nothing but brush.

As a former wildland firefighter during the long ago time of the strategy of “aggressive suppression”, where putting fires out immediately and quickly was the name of the game, we found that we were taking high risks and not allowing for natural burning to occur, in places where it needs to occur and to where there is no interface danger (homes/people in the wildland area). We got more air and ground crews injured/killed going offensive to high risk degrees on fires that could be better managed/controlled via defensive operations such as burnout ops, or directed/suppressed via line cutting/digging ops; rather than dropping guys into canyons or atop steep mountains to go offensive on wildfires where there was no threat to anything other than brush….and to where there is no good escape if things go bad. The Storm King mountain multiple fatality in 1994 in Grand Junction is where that strategy finally began to get questioned, and yet, we seem to still take high risks for questionable rewards in many of these fatality situations. Sad to see.

Sucks. RIP to the crew.

 

[schloopy]

Looks like an accelerated stall in one of the videos. Unfortunately, being an amphibian and using water instead of retardant, it requires a lower drop altitude to get some water effect without the water mostly dissipating. And in a deep canyon like this, that means having to enter the canyon to some degree in order to accomplish that…..a canyon far more suited to helicopter ops. Why the IC would allow or request that, I don’t know. Better to allow the fire to burn upslope to an area where the tanker can more effectively hit it, or line cut and burnout from the ridge top, backing down to the fire. Rather than risk a medium tanker committing itself into low lying terrain. For nothing but brush.

As a former wildland firefighter during the long ago time of the strategy of “aggressive suppression”, where putting fires out immediately and quickly was the name of the game, we found that we were taking high risks and not allowing for natural burning to occur, in places where it needs to occur and to where there is no interface danger (homes/people in the wildland area). We got more air and ground crews injured/killed going offensive to high risk degrees on fires that could be better managed/controlled via defensive operations such as burnout ops, or directed/suppressed via line cutting/digging ops; rather than dropping guys into canyons or atop steep mountains to go offensive on wildfires where there was no threat to anything other than brush….and to where there is no good escape if things go bad. The Storm King mountain multiple fatality in 1994 in Grand Junction is where that strategy finally began to get questioned, and yet, we seem to still take high risks for questionable rewards in many of these fatality situations. Sad to see.

Sucks. RIP to the crew.

I was gonna say accelerated stall but it's actually kind of hard to tell, the second video seems to show what looks like the stall breaking is actually the moment it first impacts the terrain. Or at least maybe simultaneously.

 

[bLizZuE]

Tough to watch.

 

[Inverted]

Terrible. The bank angle and loading the G like that seems so unorthodox for a drop...